Rayzor32 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 I was hoping we would lock him up for at least 3 years...but I guess 2 is better than 1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Whats your souce for this???? If it's true that the deal is only 2 years, then I am not happy with this at all. Darcy, for god's sake make an effing commitment to a player for more than a year or two. I got excited when I saw "multiyear deal" thinking it was a 3 or 4 year....I should know better by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Maybe Campbell didn't want to do it for more than two years? He's eligible for UFA when he's 28, so to sign for longer would be stupid on his part. He gave up one year of his UFA to get a little more money now. It's a good deal for both parties. If he were to sign for 4 years, he'd be underpaid at the end of his contract. He's smarter than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor32 Posted July 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 My "inside source" is the AP wire, via Yahoo sports.. Campbell accepts 2-year, $3 million deal with Sabres July 11, 2006 BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) -- Defenseman Brian Campbell avoided arbitration and agreed to terms on a two-year, $3 million contract with the Buffalo Sabres on Tuesday. Campbell will make $1.25 million next season and $1.75 million the following year, the deal representing a significant raise over his $459,800 salary last season. The six-year veteran is coming off a career year in which he led Sabres defensemen with 44 points, including 12 goals, and finished tied for the team lead with five game-winning goals. Campbell added six assists in 18 playoff games. The Sabres had retained Campbell's rights last month by issuing him a qualifying offer. Last week, Campbell was one of 12 Sabres players to opt for salary arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Whats your souce for this???? If it's true that the deal is only 2 years, then I am not happy with this at all. Darcy, for god's sake make an effing commitment to a player for more than a year or two. I got excited when I saw "multiyear deal" thinking it was a 3 or 4 year....I should know better by now. I think what you have to keep in mind is that for every negotiation there are 2 sides. You want to lock up a player for 3 or 4 years? You're most likely going to have to offer him more money per year, since he is not going to be able to negotiate for more money further down the line. I know, I know, if Darcy was a good GM, he would "get the deal done." <_< Maybe you should consider this, The Hockey News in their latest issue said Darcy was considered for Executive of the Year. He's nowhere near as bad of a GM as you would like to make him out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarge66 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Personally, I like this deal alot. Darcy didn't have to break the bank, and we locked up a top 4 d-man for the next two years. I couldn't agree more that negotitations are 2 sided, and Campbell should want to test the waters when he's eligible, or hammer out a long term contract with regeir then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 I was hoping we would lock him up for at least 3 years...but I guess 2 is better than 1... We coulda had Hadja for a lot less!!! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Whats your souce for this???? If it's true that the deal is only 2 years, then I am not happy with this at all. Darcy, for god's sake make an effing commitment to a player for more than a year or two. I got excited when I saw "multiyear deal" thinking it was a 3 or 4 year....I should know better by now. Please tell me you are kidding. Given the year that Campbell had and the money defensemen are getting, we are lucky he accepted a 2-year deal. It probably would have been better for him in the long run to just sign a 1-year deal and hit the open market next year as an UFA ... they probbaly would have had to pay him twice as much to lock him in for any longer. It's not just about the Sabres, the players can say "no" when you offer them a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 I'm just glad Darcy signed someboody for more than 1 year. The Sabres are going to take a beating in arbitration and Darcy has no one to blame but himself as he is the one who signed all the players to the one year contracts prior to this past season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Two years. My understanding is that an arbitrators decision could be made binding by the team for two years - so Campbell may have thought that deal was as good or better than he was going to do with an arbitrator. He may have been worried about the -16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 I think what you have to keep in mind is that for every negotiation there are 2 sides. You want to lock up a player for 3 or 4 years? You're most likely going to have to offer him more money per year, since he is not going to be able to negotiate for more money further down the line. I know, I know, if Darcy was a good GM, he would "get the deal done." <_< Maybe you should consider this, The Hockey News in their latest issue said Darcy was considered for Executive of the Year. He's nowhere near as bad of a GM as you would like to make him out to be. Ok, so all of a sudden the hockey news is the all-knowing perfect source of hockey intellect? Because if the hockey news says it, it must be true, right? Look, I know you don't agree with my viewpoints and think my constant grilling of Regeir is unwarranted, but that's simply your opinion and you're entitled to it, as am I. I know I have been and continue to be in the minority on this board of Regeir-backers but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop speaking my mind, despite what you may want. He could have signed him for more money and I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Soupy is going to have another good year and get more leverage. I sincerely doubt he will drop off at all this season and he's worth the investment to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Look, I know you don't agree with my viewpoints and think my constant grilling of Regeir is unwarranted, but that's simply your opinion and you're entitled to it, as am I. I know I have been and continue to be in the minority on this board of Regeir-backers but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop speaking my mind, despite what you may want. It's not a question of being pro-Regier, and you can grill him all you want, but you need to take each case as it comes ... You find fault with every move regardless. In this case, he kept Campbell out of arbitration and off the market for an extra year at a reasonable price. That's a good thing. You say you would have been OK with giving him more money, but right now they probably don't have more in the budget with all these other guys to sign. Fact is, Campbell may have gotten more in arbitration (Spacek had 12 goals and 33 assists and they gave him $3M+ ... Campbell had 12 and 31 ... I know numbers are not everything with defensemen, but one can certainly can make a case he deserves more than $1.25 M) and he definitely would have gotten more than $1.75 M on the open market next year with another year like the last one. Could they have locked him up for another year or two with more money? Sure, but the ripple effect might lose them one of the many forwards down the road ... all things considered, this was a good thing. Regier still has work to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Fact is, Campbell may have gotten more in arbitration (Spacek had 12 goals and 33 assists and they gave him $3M+ ... Campbell had 12 and 31 ... I know numbers are not everything with defensemen, but one can certainly can make a case he deserves more than $1.25 M) I read somewhere (probably one of dave's posts) that contracts signed by UFA's cannot be used in an arbitration hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 I read somewhere (probably one of dave's posts) that contracts signed by UFA's cannot be used in an arbitration hearing. That is true ... not saying he would have gotten $3M because of Spacek, just that he probably would have gotten more than $1.25 M ... I mean, the arbitrator HAS to know SOMETHING about the market to make an educated decision, right? They can't have someone who has no knowledge of the league or the market doing this, right? Wait, it is the NHL ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Ok, so all of a sudden the hockey news is the all-knowing perfect source of hockey intellect? Because if the hockey news says it, it must be true, right? Look, I know you don't agree with my viewpoints and think my constant grilling of Regeir is unwarranted, but that's simply your opinion and you're entitled to it, as am I. I know I have been and continue to be in the minority on this board of Regeir-backers but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop speaking my mind, despite what you may want. He could have signed him for more money and I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Soupy is going to have another good year and get more leverage. I sincerely doubt he will drop off at all this season and he's worth the investment to me. I'm not claiming that The Hockey News is the perfect source of hockey intellect, but they are a pretty good source. I was just pointing out that some pretty credible sources seem to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 That is true ... not saying he would have gotten $3M because of Spacek, just that he probably would have gotten more than $1.25 M ... I mean, the arbitrator HAS to know SOMETHING about the market to make an educated decision, right? They can't have someone who has no knowledge of the league or the market doing this, right? Wait, it is the NHL ... Well Campbell has to submit a desired salary. Since he agreed to this $1.5 million per year deal, I doubt that he would've submitted a number much higher than that in arbitration, $1.75 at most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Ed Kilgore on Channel 2 News tonight reported that Darcy is getting closer to signing Kotalik and Looodman. That's cool, we'll see what the deals look like. He also reported that there have been no talks between Darcy and Briere....that's the one that I am particularly concerned with....it will surely be interesting to see how long that deal, when it finally happens, and how much $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 Two years. My understanding is that an arbitrators decision could be made binding by the team for two years - so Campbell may have thought that deal was as good or better than he was going to do with an arbitrator. He may have been worried about the -16 The team only has that option for players that are more than 1 season away from UFA status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 The team only has that option for players that are more than 1 season away from UFA status. Ah. thanks Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 Did Campbell have the best season of his career? Sure. But if I'm the GM, and I need blueliners, I sign this guy to a short contract for two reasons: 1) He's had one good season so far. That doesn't garuntee three or four more similar seasons. I'll negotiate for those later. 2) This defensemen had the best season of his career, and he was -16. I appreciate the powerplay goals, but I also appreciate the ability to play five on five and not give up shorthanded goals. His own-end game still needs work, which is a big reason why it took him this long to land a roster spot. That being said, this contract's about right. $1.75 seems slightly high, but he might be a 60-point o-Dman and/or fixed his defensive play by then. Another bonus: he's not Rory Fitzpatrick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.