smokinandjokin Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 Campbell is already taken care of. Connolly's concussion history is going to hurt him badly in his hearing. Lydman already makes a big salary and he won't get too much of an increase. Kalinin's poor season will probably hurt him. Guastad will get a decent raise, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him stay below the $1 million mark. I have no idea what to expect for Afinogenov, Pominville, and Dumont. I just pray that no one else gets the same arbitrator that Briere had. 727923[/snapback] That's right, I forgot Campbell signed. I can't imagine the Sabres extending too much for Connolly- I wouldn't be shocked if he doesn't play again. I certainly wouldn't look for him this year. Lydman had a VERY solid season and was a part of the #1 defensive pairing. If you say Talinder is the team's #1, Lydman is probably the #2. What was McKee, then? Arbitrators look at the marketplace. McKee's $4 million will hurt with Lydman (if the Sabres don't lock him up before the arbitration.) I agree with your comments about Kalinin and Gaustad. IMO, they should try to lock up Gaustad on the cheap for several years. I think he is going to be a hell of a two-way player, great faceoff guy, and future captain. Max, Pville and Dumont will not be cheap. The problem with all of these players going to arbitration is that I heard the hearings get quite nasty. Basically, it is the player and the agent sitting on one side, while reps for the club sit on the other side, and the club tells the arbitrator all about the players flaws and why he's not worth X-amount of dollars. I would imagine that can get a little uncomfortable.
millbank Posted July 24, 2006 Author Posted July 24, 2006 Daniel Briere on his contract For those who didnt hear , Daniel Briere was on radio this morning. Clearly it is his desire to remain a Sabre and he does say he hopes when he and team are allowed in January they will work out a long term deal. Hockeybuzz.com says that sources say the Sabres are going to agree to the arbitors decision. Hockey buzz.com Another part of the equation regarding Sabres salaries is that the team does not wish to go over the threshold whereby they would not receive profit sharing from the league, if the Sabres cap figure is to high they will not receive this.
shrader Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 What was McKee, then? Arbitrators look at the marketplace. McKee's $4 million will hurt with Lydman (if the Sabres don't lock him up before the arbitration.)727940[/snapback] Contracts signed by UFA's cannot be used in an arbitration hearing.
smokinandjokin Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 Contracts signed by UFA's cannot be used in an arbitration hearing. 727955[/snapback] Is that true? Didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I just assumed that citing Havlat's contract when attempting to project Briere's salary that Havlat was a UFA, but now that I think about it, he was a trade to Chi.
taterhill Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 for crying out loud..Golisano should know you need to spend money to make money....Sabres fans responded...we are close to 13K in season ticket holders...keep this team together...your arena will sell out almost all season...you will get tons of playoff revenue...and if you dont F us with that crap new Jersey...merchandise sales will be through the roof....
millbank Posted July 24, 2006 Author Posted July 24, 2006 Contracts signed by UFA's cannot be used in an arbitration hearing. 727955[/snapback] Havlat was up for Arbitration this year. Muckler traded him not because of his fear at losing the arbitration case this year, Muckler felt Havlat would lose, but he traded him because Havlat stated it was his desire to be a unrestricted free in 2007-2008. So Muckler rather than lose him for nothing traded him to Chicago. Havlat was still up for Arbitration, but him signing the three year deal ended that for Chicago. Under this It has been stated they did in fact use him as example for Briere.
MarkyMannn Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 The problem with all of these players going to arbitration is that I heard the hearings get quite nasty. Basically, it is the player and the agent sitting on one side, while reps for the club sit on the other side, and the club tells the arbitrator all about the players flaws and why he's not worth X-amount of dollars. I would imagine that can get a little uncomfortable. 727940[/snapback] Sounds like the annual review process at the place I work
shrader Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 Havlat was up for Arbitration this year. Muckler traded him not because of his fear at losing the arbitration case this year, Muckler felt Havlat would lose, but he traded him because Havlat stated it was his desire to be a unrestricted free in 2007-2008. So Muckler rather than lose him for nothing traded him to Chicago. Havlat was still up for Arbitration, but him signing the three year deal ended that for Chicago. Under this It has been stated they did in fact use him as example for Briere. 727973[/snapback] What does this have to do with my pointing out that McKee's contract does not have any influence on Lydman's arbitration hearing?
millbank Posted July 24, 2006 Author Posted July 24, 2006 What does this have to do with my pointing out that McKee's contract does not have any influence on Lydman's arbitration hearing? 728013[/snapback] its has to do with the reply to this Contracts signed by UFA's cannot be used in an arbitration hearing. is that true? Didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I just assumed that citing Havlat's contract when attempting to project Briere's salary that Havlat was a UFA, but now that I think about it, he was a trade to Chi.
IBTG81 Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 Sounds like the annual review process at the place I work 727990[/snapback] You and me both...
The Jokeman Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 Max, Pville and Dumont will not be cheap. The problem with all of these players going to arbitration is that I heard the hearings get quite nasty. Basically, it is the player and the agent sitting on one side, while reps for the club sit on the other side, and the club tells the arbitrator all about the players flaws and why he's not worth X-amount of dollars. I would imagine that can get a little uncomfortable. 727940[/snapback] As said before if Danny is shipped, I'd ship him to LA. WGR was tossing names this morning and felt C Michael Cammalleri and a prospect like G Jonathan Quick be fair trade for Briere. Although I'd be more apt to ship Max, because as good as he is he just isn't a finisher and was a no show for the playoffs. Again, I'd look to ship him West and be happy with a guy like RW Alexander Radulov from Nashville or even consider D Ryan Parent (both pure speculation on my part). Pommy to me is a keeper because he's still young enough that should be able to keep a few more years. I like Dumont more than Kotalik and would retain but wouldn't be upset if lost him with Stafford on the farm.
Alaska Darin Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 As said before if Danny is shipped, I'd ship him to LA. WGR was tossing names this morning and felt C Michael Cammalleri and a prospect like G Jonathan Quick be fair trade for Briere. Although I'd be more apt to ship Max, because as good as he is he just isn't a finisher and was a no show for the playoffs. Again, I'd look to ship him West and be happy with a guy like RW Alexander Radulov from Nashville or even consider D Ryan Parent (both pure speculation on my part). Pommy to me is a keeper because he's still young enough that should be able to keep a few more years. I like Dumont more than Kotalik and would retain but wouldn't be upset if lost him with Stafford on the farm. 728233[/snapback] I'd trade Max in a heartbeat - even if it's just for picks. Dude has the heart of an ant when it matters. He's always going to disappoint.
Dan Gross Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 I'd trade Max in a heartbeat - even if it's just for pucks. Dude has the heart of an ant when it matters. He's always going to disappoint. 728318[/snapback] Fixed your obvious spelling error...
Cornerville Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 for crying out loud..Golisano should know you need to spend money to make money....Sabres fans responded...we are close to 13K in season ticket holders...keep this team together...your arena will sell out almost all season...you will get tons of playoff revenue...and if you dont F us with that crap new Jersey...merchandise sales will be through the roof.... 727968[/snapback] Bingo tater, could not have been said better
EndZoneCrew Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 I'd trade Max in a heartbeat - even if it's just for picks. Dude has the heart of an ant when it matters. He's always going to disappoint. 728318[/snapback] I could not agree more....I can count the number of "BIG" goals he has scored for us on one hand
RU5781 Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Me myself couldn't help this situation at this point.
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Am I only the one completely shocked by this ruling? $5 million for a player who's career high in points is 65 and has played a full season only once. Don't get me wrong because Briere is a good player. But he essentially got rewarded for a half season and a pretty good playoffs. Sets a really bad precident for future deals. Good for Briere, bad for Buffalo.
shrader Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Am I only the one completely shocked by this ruling? $5 million for a player who's career high in points is 65 and has played a full season only once. Don't get me wrong because Briere is a good player. But he essentially got rewarded for a half season and a pretty good playoffs. Sets a really bad precident for future deals. Good for Briere, bad for Buffalo. 728405[/snapback] A minor argument with what you just said, but what the hell: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdispla...pid%5B%5D=16000 78 games in 2001-2002. 82 games in 2002-2003. 82 games in 2003-2004. 78 games counts in my book. That's 3 full seasons he's played.
smokinandjokin Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Am I only the one completely shocked by this ruling? $5 million for a player who's career high in points is 65 and has played a full season only once. Don't get me wrong because Briere is a good player. But he essentially got rewarded for a half season and a pretty good playoffs. Sets a really bad precident for future deals. Good for Briere, bad for Buffalo. 728405[/snapback] If the current rules had been in place for the past 5 years, Briere's high-season would be much, much better than 65 points. He totaled 58 this year in 48 games. He also proved he could play a full season when the rules and hits were not so forgiving. Still, I see your point. I can't understand why if the Blues would pay Jay McKee 4 yrs/$16 million, the Sabres wouldn't offer that exact same deal to Briere. I think he would've signed it.
Recommended Posts