View Single Post
09-18-2009, 03:21 PM
Flatus Expeller
vipernsx's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,533
vCash: 500
Here's a couple of thoughts.

Brashear makes 1.4 million and Orr make 1 million. Maybe would have taken 900k to stay in NY. That's 400-500k difference wasted and Slats can't come up with that much to bridge the gap on a guy worth trying to keep?

Redden's deal could have easily been 500k less and still outbid anyone else trying to get him.

Did it really take 5million to keep Rozi or would have 4.5 gotten it done?

All of the above players are UFA's and Dubinsky is not. Their overall size of their deal would be impacted by their UFA status. The point is that there are guys on this team where Slats had no problem with throwing a couple 100k extra to sign them, even though it wasn't necessary. Yet, a guy who's worth trying to keep, isn't worth throwing a couple 100k extra towards? Where's the logic?

Just because you have leverage should you demonstrate to your employee that you undervalue them?

Many say that Dubinsky should wait and get his pay day of a 3-4 million. If Callahan is making 2.3 and Ryan Kesler is making 1.75, why only offer a guy like Dubinsky 700k when he's already seeking an amount(1.4 maybe now 1.1) that's already below what he could easily be valued at? For all the Dubinsky bashers, it's not like the guy is saying he wants 3 million. He's asking for half of what Callahan is getting and less then what a guy like Kesler is getting who signed a deal several years ago.

To offer a guy a deal that is way below the value he brings is total lack of respect to that employee and he should rightfully so, question whether or not he wants to work for that employer.

After Y2k there was the DotCom bust. I'd seen guys with good resumes who were making 70-100k (money isn't important but the established value is) apply for jobs at my company that were starting at 35k. They were willing to take that hit, to get the job because the company had the leverage due to a bad job market in IT. If Sather was offering contracts to the people applying for those jobs, he would have said "hey I got the leverage here so I'm going to use it to my best advantage....I'll give you 28k"...doing something like that is absurd and insulting to a potential employee who is already humble enough to take below value. To work for far less then what you're worth and for a company to abuse it's leverage only leads to a foul feeling employee and work environment.

How would you feel if you came to work each day and you were grossly and unnecessarily underpaid because the company you worked for decided it was more important to use their leverage then it was to demonstrate the value that, you, the employee brings?

vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote