Sather at it again

[Resolute]

The all-too-easy Ranger bashing aside, what happens if a team makes offers to two high-profile RFAs and gets both of them? If they owed a handful of firsts to two different teams, do they have to mutually decide (between the three of them) which years go to which teams, or is there a mechanism in place to decide it?

Or, for that matter, can you make an offer sheet if you've traded away all your draft picks for the coming years?

It isnt possible to make offer sheets to two RFAs, especially of Nash and Lecavalier's calibre, at the same time. As has been mentioned, you have to have the draft picks, and most importantly, they have to be your picks, you cant trade for someone else's draft picks to meet the requirements. The Rangers could have tried to go after Nash, lost, then went after Lecavalier, but if they got Nash, they would not have had the ability to sign Lecavalier.

And, if his record at the draft table is any indication, Sather hasnt been brilliant since the 80s. He had that one spectacular draft that set up the Oilers dynasty and has lived off of it ever since. Sather was one of the primary reasons why the Oilers were a mediocre to awful hockey club throughout the 90s.

 

[Resolute]

Unfortunately, he met up with Jimmy Dolan's money and ego. I blame Dolan for the Ranger signings. He wanted the over the hill guys because they were big names at one point and he wanted these guys. I like what Sather's been doing lately. I just hope that some of their prospects pan out.

Might I suggest some summer reading for you guys: Bruce Dowbiggin's "Money Players." It's a real eye opener.

I cant even stomach reading Bicycle Bruce's articles for the Herald. I'm certantly not about to read a book on the CBA by a writer who repeatedly showed on Calgary radio that he had almost no understanding of that CBA. That said, I've been told he borrowed heavily from Foul Ball for that book, so the temptation is there to see whether he actually did or not.

 

[Jackets16]

Why? Dont get me wrong, as a NYR Season Ticket holder, Im not a huge fan of Sathers, but if its within the rules to do what he SUPOSEDLY WAS DOING in the article, you cant say much. It's a salary cap world now, so whats stopping any other GM from sniffing around potential restricted FA's? The Rangers have loads of cap space and a slew full of up and coming young prospetcs. Plus, we have no real high priced long term commitments to players, other than Kasper and Malik.. ( And they are not too overwhelming, considering what defencmen are going for in the league today.)

And as far as Sather being soley responble for the escalation of salaires...check again.

Flyers, Avalanche, Red Wings..heck even Boston ( Lapointe) had as much to do with it as the Rangers did.

funny how when us poor stupid columbus fans talk about nash signing, its look at those idiots, overpaying this, that and the other. but when this comes out. its, this is the salary cap world now. what a shocker.

 

[Brooklyndevil]

Yes Jimmy, Lou offered somewhere between 41-43 million while the Rangers offered 45. While I believe that your not trying to solely blame the Rangers then perhaps the title of the thread should be something different than "Sather's at it again" because this implies that its Sathers/Rangers sole fault for rising salaries

Lets have a link regarding what you just stated about the Devils offer to Holik, because it's Bull-S***!

 

[bubba5]

link not working

http://nypost.com/sports/rangers/49794.htm

October 27, 2002 --

TORONTO - Bobby Holik says he wants to fit in with the Rangers, yet that's the last thing the organization should want from the centerman who spent the last decade tormenting the Blueshirts by exploiting every one of the franchise's psychological and physical infirmities. The Rangers don't need Holik to fit in and be a good soldier; a corporal marching lock step with a platoon on its way to a massacre. They need No. 16 to be a general, to lead and establish an example and attitude for a team that doesn't seem to have a clue how to succeed.

Holik wasn't drafted by the Rangers. He volunteered for active duty. He wasn't a free agent who received a wild, Quintallian unsolicited offer that could not be refused. The fact is, Holik pursued the Rangers even more aggressively than the team pursued him on July 1. The Maple Leafs made Holik a five-year offer of $41 million. The Devils countered with a five-year offer worth $41.25 million, a sure indication of just how desperate Lou Lamoriello really was to retain his cornerstone pivot. It was at this point that Holik instructed his agent, Mike Gillis, to phone Glen Sather and tell the GM that the center would sign with the Rangers if they offered $45M over five years - not a penny less. Sather obliged. Holik signed. I'm as confused as anyone with the way in which Bryan Trottier has misused Holik. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to have Holik on the roster and not match him every game against the opposition's top center. Really; if the Rangers were not going to use Holik in this way, there was no reason whatsoever to sign him at any price, let alone $9M a year. In more than a quarter of a century of reporting on this sport, I'm not sure that I've ever quite seen anything like this. It is the Red Sox signing Mariano Rivera as a free agent in 1999 and using him in long relief; nothing less absurd than that.

 

[cecilnyr]

Lets have a link regarding what you just stated about the Devils offer to Holik, because it's Bull-S***!

So still think it's Bulls**t?

 

[pld459666]

Actually it's very accurate

Lets have a link regarding what you just stated about the Devils offer to Holik, because it's Bull-S***!

one thing that was left out that was a major contributor to Holiks decision to leave NJ was because they wanted to defer money on the contract while the Rangers were willing to drop the whole 45 over 5 years.

But with regards to the Thread Starter's point, what exactly is wrong with a team signing a Free Agent.

The player has no contract with his current team, what exactly is your problem with the concept?

And while I may give you the Sakic signing (I'll get back to that in a minute) The Holik signing has NO MERIT whatsoever simply because he was in a class that no othe rplayer can compare themselves to. When going to arbitration, one cannot look at a player like Holik and use his contract as a basis for comparison to argue why his contract should be equal to or greater than. Holik's contract has no bearing on Jarome Iginla, Patrick Elias, Joe Thornton or any other player that hasn't earned the right to play where THEY choose. Holik on the other hand was able to have many teams bid for his services and was free to make the choice of HIS choosing. That's what seperates him from a Peca or a Madden.

Back to Sakic, 3 years and 21 million with an annual salary of 2 million per year and a 15 SB. Annual contract value was 7 million. In 1997 when he signed that contract could you honestly say that he didn't deserve it?

Prior to signing the offer sheet, Sakic had 4 seasons in 9 years over 100 points, he ha djust completed 2 post seasons in which he played in 39 games and recorded 59 points. He was considered by many the best all around player in the game.

There was no one, at the time, equal to Sakic in age or ability that could concievably compare themselves to Sakic when arguing for their contract. Yet The Ducks management somehow were hoodwinked into thinking that Karyia was worth more and handed over 10 million.

The Rangers offered a contract to an RFA as is their RIGHT under the last CBA as well as the current CBA, the owners also have the RIGHT not to bend over like the did on the Karyia and Yashin deals.

So while I may have initially given you the Sakic signing as a semi start to the increase to payrolls, I think that I'll be taking that back now.

thanks.

 

[bubba5]

Also, no one ever brings up cost of living and taxes in NYC as compared to places like Calgary. Which is why it will be very tough to bring FA to NY now under the new CBA.

 

[jerseydevil]

Glen's most famous/infamous comment as GM of the Oilers " If I had the Rangers payroll, I'd win the Stanley Cup every year"...In hindsight, Single best comment in the history of hockey.

 

[McOylerz]

While i agree with you that both the Sakic and Holik deals helped other players drive up their price tag, even under the old economic landscape of the NHL, $8million for Sakic ain't too bad. Recently, Lecavalier got $6.8million a year in a league with a cap. Now Vinnie is a great player and will be for years to come, but Sakic is (at least in my opinion) better. He has all the skills you could want, while playing both sides of the puck (well, maybe not a crushing bodycheck) and has great leadership qualities. I would say he was worth an $8million contract.

I know this wasn't really about the value of the Holik and Sakic deals and this demonstrates the recklessness of some GM's but i would have said in the old NHL that the Sakic deal would be fair. And while his contract was part of the reason prices went up, if GM's place the same financial value on a Holik as they do on a Sakic then it really illustrates the problems within the league that having too much money available creates.

Although I do not fully blame the Rangers for driving up salary, this argument is severly flawed. First of all, Sure Sakic at $8M compared with others during the last few seasons would be a great bargain but remember that when he was given that offer sheet to sign the benchmark for a superstar was about $3M. Are you trying to tell me that at $3M he was underpaid? Give me a break. So he signs that offer sheet and gets himself a 233% raise. That is absurd and that was the contract which opened the floodgates. Suddenly Kariya, Selanne, Lindros etc wanted huge raises and they got them. And the following year along came Jagr and Forsberg. In less than a year the benchmark pay rate for a top tier player more than doubled. Kariya even missed 32 games to get his huge payday. Of course Sakic signed that offer sheet, who in their right mind wouldnt? But had that contract never been offered to Sakic salaries would have risen at a much more even rate. Comparing that contract to Lecavalier isn't right either because of the different markets those contract were signed in. I do agree with the part about overvaluing Holik, but to say that Sakic at $8M in 1997 was fair is not looking at the market at the time.

 

[BlueShirt]

The Penguins are ruining hockey!

 

[Qui Gon Dave]

Although I do not fully blame the Rangers for driving up salary, this argument is severly flawed. First of all, Sure Sakic at $8M compared with others during the last few seasons would be a great bargain but remember that when he was given that offer sheet to sign the benchmark for a superstar was about $3M. Are you trying to tell me that at $3M he was underpaid? Give me a break. So he signs that offer sheet and gets himself a 233% raise. That is absurd and that was the contract which opened the floodgates. Suddenly Kariya, Selanne, Lindros etc wanted huge raises and they got them. And the following year along came Jagr and Forsberg. In less than a year the benchmark pay rate for a top tier player more than doubled. Kariya even missed 32 games to get his huge payday. Of course Sakic signed that offer sheet, who in their right mind wouldnt? But had that contract never been offered to Sakic salaries would have risen at a much more even rate. Comparing that contract to Lecavalier isn't right either because of the different markets those contract were signed in. I do agree with the part about overvaluing Holik, but to say that Sakic at $8M in 1997 was fair is not looking at the market at the time.

Fair enough, i'll admit im wrong on that one. I wasn't aware just how low the salaries were before the offer was made to Sakic. My point about the value of $8million being fair for Sakic was based around more recent contracts (like the Holik one for example) and the fact that Sakic always performs meant that it wasn't like he was taking it easy up until the year before he had to renegociate a new contract. I will hold my hands up to that one.

And i know that comparing Sakics old contract to Lecavaliers new one is flawed from the begining because of the vastly different ways teams will now have to plan their finances. But at the same time, the Sakic contract was done at a time where, if someone really wanted to (and were able to), they could do a Chelsea and spend $150million on players each year. Teams now have $39million at most to get players signed up. Lecavalier is making 6.8 a year of his teams 39. I'm not sure of the exact figure (and can't be bothered doing the research right now) but i'll guess that Vinnie is making close to what Sakic is making. Don't get me wrong, Vinnie is a HIGHLY talented player and will surely have a great career in the NHL but that just doesn't sit right with me. I just cant get used to the fact that players have so much leaverage over their clubs that Vinnie can get 6.8, Nash can get 5 or whatever he got.

But in the end, thats just my problem with what the league and what each of the teams is doing. I realise that much at least. the business aspect of things is not my strong point and i will be much relieved when we can put all this contract negociation bull**** behind us and enjoy some hockey.

BTW, good post

 

[HBK27]

Also, no one ever brings up cost of living and taxes in NYC as compared to places like Calgary. Which is why it will be very tough to bring FA to NY now under the new CBA.

That's another one of the CBA myths along the lines of "Players will take a pay cut to play with the Maple Leafs." Saying it will be very tough to bring a FA to NY because of a higher cost of living is a ridiculous statement. Some players love the excitement of living/playing in the greatest city in the world...others realize there are more marketing opportunities here. Bottom line: I don't think we'll ever hear a player say that they chose one team over another because of the cost of living. It's a consideration when you're struggling to get by on $50K a year, but with players making a minimum of $450K a year, it's probably not that big of a consideration.

 

[Mark Pavelich]

Glen's most famous/infamous comment as GM of the Oilers " If I had the Rangers payroll, I'd win the Stanley Cup every year"...In hindsight, Single best comment in the history of hockey.

I thought it was "If I had the Rangers Payroll, I'd never lose a game."

 

[pld459666]

the contract was 7 million per season

Although I do not fully blame the Rangers for driving up salary, this argument is severly flawed. First of all, Sure Sakic at $8M compared with others during the last few seasons would be a great bargain but remember that when he was given that offer sheet to sign the benchmark for a superstar was about $3M. Are you trying to tell me that at $3M he was underpaid? Give me a break. So he signs that offer sheet and gets himself a 233% raise. That is absurd and that was the contract which opened the floodgates. Suddenly Kariya, Selanne, Lindros etc wanted huge raises and they got them. And the following year along came Jagr and Forsberg. In less than a year the benchmark pay rate for a top tier player more than doubled. Kariya even missed 32 games to get his huge payday. Of course Sakic signed that offer sheet, who in their right mind wouldnt? But had that contract never been offered to Sakic salaries would have risen at a much more even rate. Comparing that contract to Lecavalier isn't right either because of the different markets those contract were signed in. I do agree with the part about overvaluing Holik, but to say that Sakic at $8M in 1997 was fair is not looking at the market at the time.

and the market at that time for superstar players was 6 million per year, Messier was coming off that exact contract, Gretzky had the same money and I believe that Mario Lemieux was pulling that kind of dough as well. Sakic falls into that catagory, especially if you compare the body of work with those other 3 Gents, they all had very similar numbers.

The Market at that time dictated that a player like Sakic would get paid that kind of money. The real problem lies in the other GM's inability to say NO to players that had not had the same level of success for the same period of time that Sakic had displayed.

and his contract was actually 2 million per season with a 15 Million SB, a slick move by the Rangers if you ask me. I wish that more teams ventured into the RFA waters. It would shed the stigma of trying to "steal" players like it's an illegal activity.

Sakic signed a contract that was comensurate with his age, abilities, past accomplishments and what he would have been able to accomplish in the future.

 

[pld459666]

if that was the case then

That's another one of the CBA myths along the lines of "Players will take a pay cut to play with the Maple Leafs." Saying it will be very tough to bring a FA to NY because of a higher cost of living is a ridiculous statement. Some players love the excitement of living/playing in the greatest city in the world...others realize there are more marketing opportunities here. Bottom line: I don't think we'll ever hear a player say that they chose one team over another because of the cost of living. It's a consideration when you're struggling to get by on $50K a year, but with players making a minimum of $450K a year, it's probably not that big of a consideration.

why do 90% of the players that play here in NY live on the outskirts of the city and not in the city?

Holik never moved his family when he signed here, during the Rangers 94 run only 2 players lived in the City, Leetch and Messier, everyone settled somewhere else.

The Cost of living in NY is a major factor for any player thinking about signing in NY. It's one of the reasons the Rangers have to offer a bit mroe than most, admittedly not the most important, but a reason nonetheless.

 

[donelikedinner]

i can't believe a thread has gone this far when its from bruce "too fat to walk, talk or write" garrioch. damn, at his best he just regurgitates crap he hears from kids at the local tim hortons.

 

[KH1]

Yeah, back on topic why would this surprise anybody if it happened? Do you think that the Rangers cleared all that cap space so they could just...not spend all that money? Everybody knows that they wanted Lecavalier, Thornton or Iginla--that's why they didn't go after Forsberg strongly.

Then again, the mere fact that Garrioch wrote it makes me doubt my own opinion...

 

[Draft Guru]

I really don't see why teams don't make any offer sheets. Is it a respect thing among GMs, sort of like an unwritten rule? There are a handful of players in this league I feel are worth 3 or 4 1st round picks..Nash, Lecavalier, Thornton, Kovalchuk, Iginla, etc. To be quite honest, I'm quite surprised nobody threw money at them. If I was the Rangers, seeing how we have a lot of cap space over the next few years, I definitely offer Kovalchuk a max contract and cough up the first round picks.

 

[HBK27]

why do 90% of the players that play here in NY live on the outskirts of the city and not in the city?

Holik never moved his family when he signed here, during the Rangers 94 run only 2 players lived in the City, Leetch and Messier, everyone settled somewhere else.

The Cost of living in NY is a major factor for any player thinking about signing in NY. It's one of the reasons the Rangers have to offer a bit mroe than most, admittedly not the most important, but a reason nonetheless.

Cost of living in NYC is a factor, but I really don't think it's enough of a deterrent to prevent players from signing here. True, probably 90% of the Rangers don't live in the city, but that's more likely due to lifestyle preference than them concerned about the costs. Very few players grow up in a big city environment, so moving to NYC can be very intimidating.

I don't think cost of living is really one of the reasons the Rangers have offered more to FA's in the past...they've just had the budget to be able to outbid most other teams. As for this offseason, the major reason they'd have to offer players more money is to get them to come to a team that is going with the youth movement and in all likelihood will not make the playoffs this year or be competitive for at least another year or two.

Cost of living may be a factor to some players, but it's way down on the list after yearly salary, length of contract, competitiveness of team, coaching/management staff, teammates, how much they enjoy the city, role on team, family concerns, etc.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Sports/Hockey/2005/08/23/1184302-sun.html

According to Garrioch this quote:
"There was talk last night both of those contracts may have been motivated by the fact Rangers GM Glen Sather was sniffing around and looking at the possibility of making an offer sheet to both players (Nash & Lecavalier). "

I've always been a fan of Sather going back to the Oiler dynasty days but I think this finally turns me from him. This guy was a key part of salary escalation during the last CBA and now he is at it again. Somebody should muzzle this guy or force him into retirement.

Please. You know what the FA in RFA stands for, right?

 

[GSC2k2*]

I really don't see why teams don't make any offer sheets. Is it a respect thing among GMs, sort of like an unwritten rule? There are a handful of players in this league I feel are worth 3 or 4 1st round picks..Nash, Lecavalier, Thornton, Kovalchuk, Iginla, etc. To be quite honest, I'm quite surprised nobody threw money at them. If I was the Rangers, seeing how we have a lot of cap space over the next few years, I definitely offer Kovalchuk a max contract and cough up the first round picks.

the offers do not get made because of:

(a) the right to match;

(b) the fear that, after the team has matched, they will reciprocate by bidding on the other team's RFA's.

It is kind of like nuclear detente.

 

[McOylerz]

Fair enough, i'll admit im wrong on that one. I wasn't aware just how low the salaries were before the offer was made to Sakic. My point about the value of $8million being fair for Sakic was based around more recent contracts (like the Holik one for example) and the fact that Sakic always performs meant that it wasn't like he was taking it easy up until the year before he had to renegociate a new contract. I will hold my hands up to that one.

And i know that comparing Sakics old contract to Lecavaliers new one is flawed from the begining because of the vastly different ways teams will now have to plan their finances. But at the same time, the Sakic contract was done at a time where, if someone really wanted to (and were able to), they could do a Chelsea and spend $150million on players each year. Teams now have $39million at most to get players signed up. Lecavalier is making 6.8 a year of his teams 39. I'm not sure of the exact figure (and can't be bothered doing the research right now) but i'll guess that Vinnie is making close to what Sakic is making. Don't get me wrong, Vinnie is a HIGHLY talented player and will surely have a great career in the NHL but that just doesn't sit right with me. I just cant get used to the fact that players have so much leaverage over their clubs that Vinnie can get 6.8, Nash can get 5 or whatever he got.

But in the end, thats just my problem with what the league and what each of the teams is doing. I realise that much at least. the business aspect of things is not my strong point and i will be much relieved when we can put all this contract negociation bull**** behind us and enjoy some hockey.

BTW, good post

Thanks

I can totally see your point about Sakic and I agree 100%. Some GMs obviously havent learned their lesson though and now we get contracts like Vinnie's or Nash's etc. I guess GMs are scared of impending free agency but I think there should be some middle ground. Unfortunately we are going to see more and more of this with a UFS age at 28. How many players have proven that they are worthy or "Sakic money" at the age of 28? I'd say very few, if any. It's a crazy, crazy market, thankfully with an even playing field the better GMs will be able to assemble great TEAMs and not just sign a bunch of stars with an unlimited payroll. If a GM shoots himself in the foot with a monster contract offer to a 27 yr old so be it. That said, I think the jury is out on Vinnie and, for that matter Nash et al. I think we will see in 4-5 years which GMs are the better ones (or the lucky ones I guess).

Good discussion! Posts like yours are why I continue to come back here. I may not post as much as some, but I dare say I read as much, and I appreciate when I can read quality not just sarcastic one-liners.

 

[Timmy]

I may not post as much as some, but I dare say I read as much, and I appreciate when I can read quality not just sarcastic one-liners.

Yeah, me too.