Reading up on free agency's opening day
Brooks Orpik, Marian Hossa and Mats Sundin are still mulling big offers and we still don't know what's going to happen with Jaromir Jagr. So there are plenty of unanswered questions even after more than $300 million was handed out on the first day of NHL free agency -- with $57 million of that somehow going to Brian Campbell from the Chicago Blackhawks. They either got the perfect guy for their blueline to make them a real contender or just woefully overpaid. We'll see. There's no gray area when you're talking those kinds of dollars.
The Sabres, of course, got their backup goalie when they signed Patrick Lalime but have dropped out of the Orpik sweepstakes and won't be netting any big fish from the free agent waters as John Vogl and Bucky Gleason report in today's News.
Here's a morning look at some of what's being said elsewhere:
Hawks sign Campbell -- Chicago Tribune
Campbell turned down Sens' six-year deal -- Ottawa Sun
Campbell speaks -- to the Hawks' Web site: "The organization started to make the city take note and provide a lot of entertainment and something the fans could hold onto. I think that’s pretty exciting. I’ve been involved with that, especially in Buffalo the last couple of years. When you get a city behind you, things just go up and up."
Rangers sign Redden, keep Roszival -- As this New York Daily News story points out, the Rangers will be paying nearly $33 million to just five players (Wade Redden, Michal Rozsival, Chris Drury, Scott Gomez and Henrik Lundqvist) for the next four years. That's a good way to land in salary cap jail. Better not keep losing in the second round.
Pens still waiting on Orpik and Hossa -- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Bruins sign Habs' Ryder -- Boston Globe
Isles nab Habs' Streit -- Newsday
Who's Jeff Finger? -- I had the same question Vogl did yesterday. In this Toronto Star article, new coach Ron Wilson insists Leafs fans will find out. But Star columnist Damien Cox says it's still Laffland with this kind of deal.
---Mike Harrington
Elma, You want to give credit to Regier because the signed him for 5 instead of 3 how do you know that 3 was even offerred? Forsight would of been locking up Briere or Drury in the 5 million range when they had the chance . As far Regier being able to simply overspend to win that was not my point. I do not believe that our ownership is giving all the latitude to Regier to be able to be proactive and say commit monies in advance to a Briere ,Drury or Campbell. Do you beleive this ownership is comitted to winning it all?
Posted by: kriszaP | July 02, 2008 at 04:18 PM
"Roy was not forsight, they just lost 2 centers"
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Last year, there were rumblings that they overpaid for Roy in response to the loss of Drury / Briere. The Sabres had the foresight to set a reasonable price that also eliminated 3 UFA years for Roy.
Not having foresight would have been committing for 3 years to quell the angry mob, and then have him hit UFA and command an even hogher price then.
Why do you think this wasn't foresight - because Roy actually reached RFA status?
Just like Vanek, what incentive was there for Roy to negotiate early? These guys had great seasons on a President's Trophy team. They would either get an Offer Sheet to bump up their value or they could wait for Arbitration (which the prior summer's Briere Award showed was pretty favorable).
Did you want the Sabres to use "Bucky Foresight" and offer Roy $975,000 for 3 years?
So, some of the consensus criticism here is that Darcy doesn't learn very well or is afraid to commit to people.
However, the Sabres learned to stay away from Arbitration and also committed to a play 3 years into his UFA eligibility.
Like I said, those who make some of these critiques have some pretty selective memories.
******************
"I would like to see how he would perform if he had an ownership that wanted win it all"
C'mon - haven't we put that oversimplifying assumption to bed yet? You can't "win it all" simply by opening your pocketbook (e.g. Toronto outspent Detroit) And I'm fairly certain Tampa hasn't guaranteed themselves a thing. They opened their pocketbooks after winning their first Cup and ending up needing a firesale within 2 years. Same thing for the post-lockout Flyers. Did those teams lose because their ownership "wasn't committed?" or is it possible that it has something to do with the Players' on ice performance?
Posted by: ElmaGolf | July 02, 2008 at 03:45 PM
Elma,I will give Tallinder/Lydman, but Roy was not forsight, they just lost 2 centers and had to overpay for Vanek they had no choice. Would Regier be a different GM if he did not have Quinn and Goliasano as his bosses. I would like to see how he would perform if he had an ownership that wanted win it all. I think we would all see if differently.
Posted by: kriszaP | July 02, 2008 at 02:48 PM
Rock - "Good points about the Briere situation. There is an arguement that can be made that there were indications it could go that way."
It would have been difficult to predict the market going that far north back in the Summer of 2005-06. Briere was the FIRST player to go to Arbitration after the lockout, so he was really the first indicator of how out of control things were going to get. Even more, they would have had a hard time committing that type of money / term PRE-ARBITRATION until they were able to settle up with all their other FAs that summer (they had 12).
If you remember, there was quite a bit of speculation whether the Sabres would even be able to keep Briere after the Arbitration Award with how big a chunk of the Cap it swallowed.
The Sabres learned from that award and started locking up some players at reasonable contracts that summer just to fit under the Cap (Lydman / Tallinder) and still be able to keep Briere. They also learned to avoid ridiculous Arbitration Awards pretty quickly (except DuMont - who was awarded $2.9 but was only able to fetch $2.2 when the Sabres walked away).
With all the talk of what D-Men are getting paid now, can't we admit there was a LITTLE foresight involved in Lydman / Tallinder having a COMBINED $5.4MM Cap Hit in 2009-2010? (Again, there's some "selective memory" going on when people talk about "lack of foresight").
I wrote Bucky and asked him about this. He even admits that not accepting the $5/25 offer before arbitration wasn't the mistake. He still contends that not signing Briere for $5/25 on January 1, 2007 was the "mistake." As I said before, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that Briere would have accepted the same money he offered before Arbitration when he was 6 months closer to UFA & having the season he was having.
So when people rant and rave about "lack of foresight," it gets a bit too much. They locked up Lyman / Tallinder in 2006 to some pretty good bargains. They locked up Roy in 2007 to a pretty good bargain.
Isn't it just possible that the Sabres perhaps aren't completely lacking foresight, but maybe they just disagree on how much these players are actually worth?
North Buffalo claims that the Sabres didn't sign Campbell to 5/$25 because they were "short-sighted" and didn't know someone would pay him $7MM.
In my opinion, that analysis is "short-sighted." Darcy actually looks ahead and considers what a 5-6 year commitment to a 29 year old will look like when the player is 32-34, rather than just consider the impact RIGHT NOW.
You're point on signing Campbell to 6/$30 and using him until you're done with him is interesting (almost seems like what Tampa is doing with Boyle). But your asumption that he'll be a bargain to trade away in a few years is based on the presumption he maintains his play (in which case, why would you trade him?) Again, I think this is because the Sabres maybe didn't think he'd be worth that type of money in those later years. It's not that the Sabres are afraid of long-term commitments - it's just that there's a big difference in a 6 year contract given to a 24 year old vs a 29 year old.
Posted by: ElmaGolf | July 02, 2008 at 02:37 PM
North Buffalo, Could not agree with you more. Regier has been quoted as being surprised again that these free agent numbers are rising so quickly the same thing he said last year. He is a sleep at the wheel. The bar has been raised agian and now we will have to ante up even more just to keep Pommer and Milsie. Not surprised to see Kalinin not signed or Afingonez not traded. Again we hang on to guys to long and in the end worth nothing, and let other linger to long only to loose them in Free agency. Thank god we have Regier. lol
Posted by: kriszaP | July 02, 2008 at 01:59 PM
HA!, also on the Avery thing, I was a dollar late. But TSN is reporting 15.5 over 4.
Posted by: North Buffalo | July 02, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Wow, I'll quit while I'm ahead - have a good day!
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 01:32 PM
On the Ryder issue... hmmm, his leadership and timely goal scoring alone may make him worth near that. But only if it is a one year contract. After that, I agree too much.
Posted by: North Buffalo | July 02, 2008 at 01:29 PM
Besides Smith and Bouwmeester, Montador is still out there. Good solid D guy, with some age, but has always been tough. Why not him?
Also, Avery is still on the board as well as our old friends, Stu Barnes, a centerman, who hustles and Geoff Sanderson.
There are folks to pick from.
Posted by: North Buffalo | July 02, 2008 at 01:26 PM
Oh, and while your agreeing with me - can we agree that $4mil/yr for Ryder is insane?
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Avery to Dallas 4yr 16mil
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Amen, Rock
Posted by: North Buffalo | July 02, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Hey North Buffalo, go one further - I could not believe we watched two centers go by the wayside and did not replace! You win up the middle.
I agree - it is a matter of getting in front of situations. EXAMPLE: Knowing the way the market has been going - why not sign Campbell for $5million at six years - get your use out of him for as long as you like and do not hesitate to trade him when the time is right for the organization - he would still be a bargain for the big spenders out there. In this system IDENTIFY the players who are going to be in demand lock them up long term and trade them before the terms are up? They will be a bargain compared to the newest UFA's and you get assets in return.
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 01:10 PM
P.S. I paraphrased and summarized Gleason for those who don't understand my last comment.
Posted by: North Buffalo | July 02, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Dear Rock, thanks for the clarification of your views and I happen to agree with you on your specific concerns, but I think it is a matter of style. I still think management should be ridden until it proves me wrong. Unlike other posters, I don't think the Campbell deal was necessarily a mistake in itself. While very much an offensive defenseman, his defensive liabilities can be glaring. But the problem is Regier has not gotten anyone to replace him or Kalinin. Paetch has not panned out and while Weber and Sekjera are promising this lack of effort and shortage of centermen has not changed since it was obvious the Sabres were also losing Drury and Briere. Regier's short sightedness drives me nuts. Be creative, get out in front of these situations. As Gleason says Regier's learning curve is extremely slow, however I agree with you, it does not have to be expensive, just more agressive.
Posted by: North Buffalo | July 02, 2008 at 01:01 PM
I believe there is a 100% hit for players over 35.
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Sorry Elma, was not clear - I agree that criticism is warranted for the handling of those contracts - I do not agree with all of the particular criticisms of the masses of GM's that reside in the Western NY area.
Good points about the Briere situation. There is an arguement that can be made that there were indications it could go that way.
Good to see some level heads are out there.
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Elma: Just looked up portions of the CBA and Im pretty certain it goes like this: contracts can be bought out for 2/3 for guys 26 and over and one-third for those under 26.
As for the cap hit figures, it's VERY complicated. Check out http://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm
Also, guys 35 or over who sign multi year count against the cap as normal if they retire before the contract is up.
Posted by: Mike Harrington | July 02, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Mike,
Just so I know, what is the Salary Cap penalty for "buying out" a player?
For example, if the Hawks buy-out Campbell after year 5, they will have taken $35MM of Cap Hit to that point. What happens to the last $21 MM? Does it limit how much the Hawks can spend in years 6-8?
If not, it seems like a way for the Big Market Teams to circumvent the Cap. Using Briere as an example, if the Flyers paid Briere $52MM over 8 years, but really only intend to play him for 6 years, aren't they really paying an annual Salary of $8.7MM (instead of the Cap Hit of $6.5M?)
I vaguely remember talk of some loophole when a player's contract of > 3 years takes them over age 35, any years over age 35 can be bought out without penalty - but I may be getting that totally confused.
Any clarification would help - I know you probably don't have much work to do today covering Sabres' signings. :-)
Posted by: ElmaGolf | July 02, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Rock,
I'm glad from your prior post that you're able to see that the Extreme views of "complete incompetence" are a bit much.
However, you wrote "I agree completely with the criticism of the Briere/Drury/Campbel situation"
You're falling into a trap that Bucky wants you to fall into - that all 3 of those situations can be equated. (At least Bucky has stopped tacking on McKee / Grier to that sentence - perhaps he's realized that maybe those weren't the horrific losses everyone thought).
But, Drury / Briere / Campbell are all completely different.
DRURY - Wholly agreed that was a complete mistake. Had an agreement on the table and they blew it. Been reported, conceded, agreed upon 100s of times - can we move on (I think Bob Woodward actually stopped talking about Watergate before the time it will take Bucky to let that go).
BRIERE - Asked for $5 / 25 BEFORE Arbitration after the 05-06 season. Not taking that offer was reasonable because NO ONE envisioned the market getting that out of control based on salaries at the time (not even Bucky - who thought $3.8MM was a fair value back then). Compared to today's contracts, that would have been like Derek Roy coming to the Sabres last summer saying he wanted $6MM / 6 years or he was going to Arbitration (with no room for negotiation).
Once Briere reached Arbitration that summer, the Sabres couldn't even talk to him until January 1, 2007. By that time, he was the leading scorer & captain of a team that was outpacing the league by double digits, and he was only months from UFA. I know Bucky claims Briere still would have accepted $5MM at that point, but that's a COMPLETE FANTASY (right up there with "I want to stay here").
It's even more pitiful for Bucky to claim the Sabres didn't learn. They locked up Roy at $4MM (imagine his value after tacking on last season's performance) to avoid such a repeat. So, when the Sabres are right with FORESIGHT, there's barely a blip in the News' coverage. When Bucky's right in HINDSIGHT, it's trumpeted over & over again.
Which leads us to Campbell - supposedly more evidence that the Sabres "didn't learn." The SAME management team that made an assessment of talent and committed to Derek Roy supposedly didn't do that for Campbell. It's pretty clear from the way the whole Campbell saga played out that Soupy was solely interested in TERM and guaranteed money. He could have played at home in Ottawa for the same annual money for six years, but went to Chicago because they were willing to tack on years 7 & 8.
The Sabres appreciated Campbell's talent as of today, it's just that they didn't have the same appreciation for his talent when he's 32 & 33 years old. Apparently, Campbell also must not have as much confidence in sustaining his level of play, given how much emphasis he placed on term in negotiations.
Bucky writes with the assumption that Campbell has already justified his initial salary demands, simply because Chicago is willing to pay $7MM for a "speed player" from ages 33-37? We won't know if the Sabres assessments were right or wrong until any of these players reach years 4-7 of their preposterous deals. Unfortunately, since everyone wants to render their unequivocal verdicts TODAY / NOW / RIGHT THIS SECOND / "IT'S ALREADY JULY 2nd AND MILLER's STILL NOT SIGNED", we probably won't even take note if Briere is traded for Salary Cap reasons in 2012 so the Flyers can keep an upcoming 26 year old star, or when Campbell is bought out in the Summer of 2013.
Posted by: ElmaGolf | July 02, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Elma: You're right -- the Rangers, Toronto, Philly et alcan certainly get out from under their mistakes down the road if they want. But it does limit what they can do during the season, esp. at deadline time, if they want to make a move to pump a certain area. And they're still talking about Hossa too!
Posted by: Mike Harrington | July 02, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Yeah, good idea about Wolski JB, i'd be happy with Dustin Brown(via trade) or Wolski (via RFA), both very good wingers, brown is just a more all around player, but Wolski is also very good.
Posted by: Nick | July 02, 2008 at 11:28 AM
"the Rangers will be paying nearly $33 million to just five players (Wade Redden, Michal Rozsival, Chris Drury, Scott Gomez and Henrik Lundqvist) for the next four years. That's a good way to land in salary cap jail."
Mike - that just shows the Rangers are COMMITTED to winning - right?
Glad to see there's a little perspective on some of the insanity.
However, I don't know if it really puts them in "jail." Teams like New York & Toronto can just buy out their mistakes and start all over with their poaching. (I may be wrong on that - I need a refresher on how the buyouts affect their cap for the "unplayed" years).
Posted by: ElmaGolf | July 02, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Here's a random thought - If Buffalo could somehow unload Afinigenov...I'd love to see them drop an offer sheet on Wojtek Wolski from Colorado. Kid is really good but completely overshadowed by Stastny. He'd be a great fit (scoring winger with size who can actually score - I'm lookin at you, Bernier) and wouldn't be too expensive. Plus let's be honest a Polish kid like Wolski(similar to Posluszny with the Bills) would have instant popularity here.
Posted by: JB | July 02, 2008 at 11:16 AM
If the Sabres aren't in the running for Brooks Orpik, they should sign JASON SMITH,
a physical, vetran, stay at home defenseman.....he was the Flyers captain last year...so c'mon Darcy, what are you waiting for? STOP BEING LAZY AND IMPROVE OUR TEAM!!
Soupy's deal in Chicago is insane, but good for him, he's on a good young team. Sundin is not worth $10mil a year, that's disgusting.
If Darcy makes a trade, if we happened to aquire a forward with a defensman in exchange for multiple forwards, i would want Ithaca native, Dustin Brown. He's an all-around good player. Led the league in hits, still managed to score 33 goals and put up 27 assists.
Posted by: Nick | July 02, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I agree completely with the criicism of the Briere/Drury/Campbel situation - whether it was incompetence or flat out arrogance the fact remains that management of those contracts was inexcusable.
The issue now though is - what are you going to do now. Stop living in the past and move forward - critcize present issues - those guys are gone. (Though I must admit that it would have been salt in the wounds to pay Rolston even $4 million let alone the $5mil he got as 35 yr old after balking on 5 per for the other guys we let go).
North Buffalo, I do not disagree with everything you write but if you would pay $4 million per for Michael Ryder, the 14 goal 7 assist Michael Ryder - you have gone and lost it. That is insane. We are paying half that for guys we are looking at running out of town (Max, Ales) who are more productive than him. Use a better example.
That said, it turned out that Tampa got 29 goal scorer at a "decent" price for yesterdays craziness at $3 mil per. Interested to see who other people thought were "bargains" yesterday.
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I wholeheartedly agree that the Sabres are desperately lacking in veteran leadership. I mean, Patrick Marleau has been on the block and the two gm's have a history now... Jason Smith would be a good fit, too. And no more of this "rotating captain" crap. How many teams have won the Cup without steady, unchanging and consistent leadership? That'd be none.
Posted by: JB | July 02, 2008 at 10:55 AM
"is it possible he (Bucky Gleason) keeps rehashing the Drury/Briere/Campbell sagas just to annoy us fans?" - yeah, I am sure that's it! Defend management all you want, but I say good for adult realists that Gleason is around town to call a spade a spade. It's a shame that this talented young team can't get management to help it out July 1st or at the trade deadline year after year. Who raises the cup each year? Teams with hard nose veterans sprinkled in among pure talent. And don't forget who has helped quietly establish these overblown free agency market prices; the Sabres!! The biggest fish these last two years were ex-Sabres who should have never reached free agency. The old "no negotiations during the season" policy helped these guys walk for much bigger contracts than what the Sabres could have signed them for had they been proactive in early negotiations.
Posted by: Dave | July 02, 2008 at 10:41 AM
To Quote Reagan..."There You Go Again,... Rock. We are not advocating overspending.
So the Sundin comment is a non-sequitor. How about Jay Bouwmeester or Jason Smith???, Michael Ryder would not have been bad too? Non of these guys would break the bank and are more to the point.
So stop throwing around names like Hossa and Sundin or even Campbell and list some guys out there that would reasonably be welcome additions. Click on http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=11074 for a list of available players. Also, there is a list of who has signed for how much: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=11353
Posted by: North Buffalo | July 02, 2008 at 10:15 AM
They do need veteran leadership - I'm the first to espouse that. But I don't want them to overpay for it. Pay a fair salary - underpaying is as bad as overpaying.
Also, I never said Sabres management was perfect. They've made mistakes - every team has, by the way, not just the Sabres. They do need to fill holes, and I think they will.
Posted by: Amanda | July 02, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I agree, Rock. I'm happy with the Sabres moves yesterday and I'm waiting to see what they do via trades.
Bouwmeester would be a good addition, and if we can shed some salary (see Afinogenov, Max) to a team desperately in need of some offense, all the better.
Posted by: Amanda | July 02, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Oh, one last thing - I really want a center too - but would the critics been happy if they offered Mats Sundin 10 MILLION to play here! Stupid, irresponsible spending for a guy has not won ANYTHING in his NHL career.
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I posted this comment this morning on the end of last nights article, but it bears repeating.
Those on this topic who complain that pointing out management deficiencies is chewing on sour grapes are misrepresenting the state of the Sabres and misstating the problem.
The Montreal example of building within coupled with some veteran leadership is precisely the point. Where is the Veteran leadership.... the Sabres sent it to NY and Philli and did not replace it. See how well Montreal does with the losses of its free agents, Ryder etc. and the same for Pitt.
Yes, the Sabres have a lot of young talent and that is what is so frustrating. They are a few key veterans away from contending. Is that so much to ask management for. Until they win one, it is the responsibility of every fan to complain about every misstep and wasted opportunity. Recently, they have been glaring.
Don't miscontrue what I am stating. I am not advocating breaking the bank, but spending wisely, creatively, but agressively. A defender and a quality centerman should have been a priority.
Roy is wonderful, so is Gaustad, but Connolly is oft injured and can't take the punishment and Mair, while gritty doesn't produce enough. They need another on the level of Briere and Drury. Show me that sort of addition and one on D and I will stop complaining. Till then Regier is still a Bum!
Posted by: North Buffalo | July 02, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I have been an outspoken critic of management for a good while with the bungling of contract negotiations and lack of creativity in making something, ANYTHING happen with regards to putting some positive energy into the franchise after the debacle of last July 1st.
But reading the off the wall and ridiculous posts last night - I actually became a defender of management. Yesterday was pure insanity. This is a weak UFA class to start and the money thrown around was irresponsible and renders the lockout as completely useless.
Many of the writers were lambasting the management for apparently pulling out of the Orpik sweepstakes. Well, the STUPID money thrown out to the likes of Campbell, Striet and the "prize behind curtain three" MR. FINGER - all but sealed the deal on the fate of Orpik in Buffalo. He was the sixth defenseman who had a great playoff - he will end the day most likely being very overpaid - and we should all be happy for the local boy made good.
Look, it could be worse - Ottawa DECLARED that they were going to be aggressive. They had the inside track in the Campbell sweepstakes with him having played for the 67's and being from Ontario. WRONG... after even bucking up for the insane 7 million they were turnined down because their more responsible offer of 6 years was trumped by Chicago's eight. Do not fool yourselves and pay attention to BS interviews that these guys give about "wanting to stay" or "would love to go home". It is about thedollars and the dollars alone.
Wake up people, the time to scream is not now, it is when the trading time comes. Let's see what is done there. Pick your battles wisely. For one I am happy I am a Sabres fan today and not a Leafs fan - 14 million for a guy who was making league min. last year? Ottawa - comes away with only Auld? NJ - bringing in 35 yr old Rolston for 5mil per. Don't forget the way the rules work when you want to get rid of that overpaid old man on your team you are on the hook for that salary - ask Toronto.
I vote for a trade - package up whatever it takes for Bouwmeester - he is 24 - pay him his money while he is in his prime and enjoy.
Posted by: Rock | July 02, 2008 at 09:56 AM
Drury/Briere/Campbell was relevant. Shows they're not paying the big fish. I don't want Orpik to be our highest-paid guy either but that's the way this crazy league is going. Hey, it's starting to look like Vanek is going to be a complete STEAL when his salary hits 6.4M. Who would have ever thought that?
Posted by: Tom-Tonawanda | July 02, 2008 at 09:53 AM
I think the Sabres were honest. Regier said they wouldn't be active in the UFA market and that trades were more likely. So far it looks like he's telling the truth.
I think what bothers me is that when the Sabres refused to get into the "stupid money game" that is NHL free agency these days, Bucky goes after them. Not overpaying players is a sound business decision to keep a franchise afloat, I think.
By the way, I don't have a problem with a reporter taking issue with the team. I don't want a reporter who only blows sunshine all the time, but get a new dance. The Drury/Briere/Campbell song is getting way old. I mean, seriously, did Bucky need to remind us that we lost these guys? We know, Bucky, we know.
There are other d-men out there, much as I would've liked to see Brooks Orpik here. I certainly don't want to pay him more than Roy, Pommer, etc are going to make, though, and that's probably what some other team is going to offer him. Keep looking, Darcy. I've got faith.
Posted by: Amanda | July 02, 2008 at 09:48 AM
Amanda: I don't have any problem with what Bucky wrote TODAY. Sure, I've disagreed with him before. But his point is that the Sabres won't pay for a big fish like a lot of other people will. Maybe in the end, that strategy will work out OK. But I think Bucky just wants them to be HONEST about what they're doing and tell people that's the plan. We're paying the ticket prices. Let us know if Tom is investing our money or pocketing it.
I always think people aren't reading into Bucky's stuff enough. It's almost always about more than just the topic at hand and that's why he keeps the Sabres on their toes like writers in other cities do. Look at what's written in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.
Posted by: Tom-Tonawanda | July 02, 2008 at 09:42 AM
Why why why does Bucky Gleason persist in berating the Sabres for every move they do or don't make? And is it possible he keeps rehashing the Drury/Briere/Campbell sagas just to annoy us fans?
Personally, I'm fine with the Lalime pickup. It IS an improvement over Thibault, and we didn't overpay him. We also got him for two years, so the goaltending situation should be stable (as long as they sign Miller, which they show every indication of doing) until Jonas Enroth is ready to back up Miller. Who would've been an improvement over Lalime, Bucky? I'd love to know.
As far as not getting a d-man, I'm fine that they didn't pay $3.5 million for some guy I've never heard of (Finger) or, God forbid, $7 million to Campbell. Neither player is worth it. It will work out in the end.
I, for one, have faith in the Sabres management. It's painfully, annoying obvious that Bucky Gleason doesn't. Go live in Tampa, Bucky. I hear there's some nice swampland down there.
Posted by: Amanda | July 02, 2008 at 09:35 AM