chernobylwraiths
07-07-2007, 12:32 PM
Since everyone is giving their opinion, whether it is some kind of conspiracy or just plain stupidity of the FO, I just want to clarify what I feel about the FO.
First off, I won't try to distinguish between Darcy and Larry. I have no knowledge of who pulls the chains there so I won't give my opinion on that. I think Golisano isn't part of that group as much as some do. He writes the checks, but he is still not a hockey guy and I think he leaves those types of decisions to his hockey guys. He might have been able to do something to prevent someone like Drury from leaving, maybe like personally calling him before the deadline and telling him how much he really wanted to keep him on his team, but that is all water under the bridge.
I think the FO really screwed up with Chris Drury. If you go to a player and talk numbers for a new contract, it is totally your responsibility to finish the job if you feel you are close to a deal. If any of you have met a good salesman, if they feel they have you close to a deal, they will do anything to get that deal done, including calling you in a day or two to touch base. You just don't leave a deal undone for two weeks and expect the person to not think about it. Drury's agent isn't an idiot, and he knew the longer he sat, the better his leverage was. However, leverage isn't everything. It is professional sports, and hockey contracts are guaranteed. An athlete knows that his career might end on any play (Chris's could have ended from that hit by Neil) and wants stability. That is a main reason why Joe Thorton and Jerome Iginla signed deals a year early, because they would rather take the sure money now then take that chance and wait to take a chance. Even right after the season, they possibly could have had him for the price ($6 million) he said he would have signed for. The season was still fresh and he was around his teammates and in his job's home. Once he left and was given the opportunity to go to his regular home away from hockey and had a chance to think about it, he thought of all the other places he could go, of the amount of money he could make, of the nices places he could play. I don't know when they tried to contact him to extend a contract offer. The FO said that they talked to him just after the season ended, but when Darcy was signed to a new contract, he said he hadn't spoken with Danny or Chris and would probably talk to them later that week or the next week. Somewhere, someone lied.
As for Danny Briere, his situation was just a bad miscalculation on their part. Combine that with the fact that they "don't negotiate during the season" another lie that they contradicted with their efforts to negotiate with Drury. Since they wouldn't negotiate during the season, his fate was sealed. As the season wore on, his price tag was going to make it impossible to resign him after the season. Again, this is all on the FO for their refusal to negotiate in season. I can't really fault them TOO much on last year's negotiations with Danny. However, if they basically KNEW what the market would be for Danny (seeing what Havlat got from Chicago) and they could have landed him long term for the 25 for 5 that was reported, then maybe they deserve a little fault for that too. I don't mind the loss of Briere much myself. They will miss the scoring, but I don't feel Danny brought as much to the team as many others did besides that.
The Thomas Vanek situation is a totally different story. I will say that never in a million years would I have thought he could have landed a RFA contract like that. I also thought about the $5 million a year type deal that many others thought also. Apparently, so did Edmonton, that is why they felt the need to up the ante. I don't know if they could have gotten a deal done with Thomas any earlier, but as with Danny, since they wouldn't negotiate in season, they hamstrung themselves yet again. That being the case, they did the best they could in the situation by emphatically matching the offer (and I am saying this because the called the press conference within minutes of the story breaking) and taking a shot at Edmonton for driving up prices further.
In the end, I am still saddened by the moves made, while a little hopeful that all is not lost. The loss of Zubrus was not big IMO. The league is littered with players who play great during the last months of a contract year. I like the fact that we at least kept Vanek, but count me as one of the few who feel that I would have rather kept Drury as the one out of the three (those draft picks could have been nice). The FO has done a fairly nice job of trading for players, even though their patience is a little too much for my taste. It's their negotiating that has been atrocious IMO and they should make major changes in the way they negotiate with players if they want players to want to come here. But by the beginning of the season, I will be cheering for these Sabres to win and will still wear any gear proudly. I just won't have the same feeling of being on the verge that I had last year.
Just my :2cents:
First off, I won't try to distinguish between Darcy and Larry. I have no knowledge of who pulls the chains there so I won't give my opinion on that. I think Golisano isn't part of that group as much as some do. He writes the checks, but he is still not a hockey guy and I think he leaves those types of decisions to his hockey guys. He might have been able to do something to prevent someone like Drury from leaving, maybe like personally calling him before the deadline and telling him how much he really wanted to keep him on his team, but that is all water under the bridge.
I think the FO really screwed up with Chris Drury. If you go to a player and talk numbers for a new contract, it is totally your responsibility to finish the job if you feel you are close to a deal. If any of you have met a good salesman, if they feel they have you close to a deal, they will do anything to get that deal done, including calling you in a day or two to touch base. You just don't leave a deal undone for two weeks and expect the person to not think about it. Drury's agent isn't an idiot, and he knew the longer he sat, the better his leverage was. However, leverage isn't everything. It is professional sports, and hockey contracts are guaranteed. An athlete knows that his career might end on any play (Chris's could have ended from that hit by Neil) and wants stability. That is a main reason why Joe Thorton and Jerome Iginla signed deals a year early, because they would rather take the sure money now then take that chance and wait to take a chance. Even right after the season, they possibly could have had him for the price ($6 million) he said he would have signed for. The season was still fresh and he was around his teammates and in his job's home. Once he left and was given the opportunity to go to his regular home away from hockey and had a chance to think about it, he thought of all the other places he could go, of the amount of money he could make, of the nices places he could play. I don't know when they tried to contact him to extend a contract offer. The FO said that they talked to him just after the season ended, but when Darcy was signed to a new contract, he said he hadn't spoken with Danny or Chris and would probably talk to them later that week or the next week. Somewhere, someone lied.
As for Danny Briere, his situation was just a bad miscalculation on their part. Combine that with the fact that they "don't negotiate during the season" another lie that they contradicted with their efforts to negotiate with Drury. Since they wouldn't negotiate during the season, his fate was sealed. As the season wore on, his price tag was going to make it impossible to resign him after the season. Again, this is all on the FO for their refusal to negotiate in season. I can't really fault them TOO much on last year's negotiations with Danny. However, if they basically KNEW what the market would be for Danny (seeing what Havlat got from Chicago) and they could have landed him long term for the 25 for 5 that was reported, then maybe they deserve a little fault for that too. I don't mind the loss of Briere much myself. They will miss the scoring, but I don't feel Danny brought as much to the team as many others did besides that.
The Thomas Vanek situation is a totally different story. I will say that never in a million years would I have thought he could have landed a RFA contract like that. I also thought about the $5 million a year type deal that many others thought also. Apparently, so did Edmonton, that is why they felt the need to up the ante. I don't know if they could have gotten a deal done with Thomas any earlier, but as with Danny, since they wouldn't negotiate in season, they hamstrung themselves yet again. That being the case, they did the best they could in the situation by emphatically matching the offer (and I am saying this because the called the press conference within minutes of the story breaking) and taking a shot at Edmonton for driving up prices further.
In the end, I am still saddened by the moves made, while a little hopeful that all is not lost. The loss of Zubrus was not big IMO. The league is littered with players who play great during the last months of a contract year. I like the fact that we at least kept Vanek, but count me as one of the few who feel that I would have rather kept Drury as the one out of the three (those draft picks could have been nice). The FO has done a fairly nice job of trading for players, even though their patience is a little too much for my taste. It's their negotiating that has been atrocious IMO and they should make major changes in the way they negotiate with players if they want players to want to come here. But by the beginning of the season, I will be cheering for these Sabres to win and will still wear any gear proudly. I just won't have the same feeling of being on the verge that I had last year.
Just my :2cents: