Player Discussion Jeff Skinner

[TehDoak]

Hmmm…

Skinner good before Krueger…Skinner good after Krueger…Skinner bad with Krueger…

The only possible conclusion is that Skinner is the problem.

Now I will triple down on it with another condescending script that posits he is a lazy person who only cares about money. Because despite my best efforts to make you forget…that is what started this.

Instead of owning up to that absolute bullshit…I will frame an argument where everyone who disagrees is saying Jeff Skinner is the best player of all time.

The stronger correlation is his played dropped precipitously after receiving what amounts to a retirement contract.

His play rebounded when the new coach has really no other choice but to give him premium ice time because...to be frank, the team had no one else to play in that position.

Was it smart for Krueger to banish Skinner to the dog house and never let him play with good players again? Of course not.

Did Skinner earn his demotion through lack luster play and a lack of production? Absolutely.

The idea that Krueger was to blame for Skinner taking two seasons off is silly. Skinner by all rights earned his position in his dog house.

And to point out again, this wasn't the first time Skinner pulled an extended disappearing act. Heck, before we gave him that massive contract, he took 20 games off.

Skinner isn't a veteran player that our young skaters should be emulating or even going to for advice. That's the truth wrapped around the joke.

 

[joshjull]

By all accounts, Skinner earned the wrath of Krueger by his play over two seasons. Krueger certainly didn't set him up to succeed, however.

Nope. Before they even played a game under Krueger, he had already decided to take Skinner away from PP1, off Jack’s wing, etc. It had nothing to do with Krueger being mad at him and everything to do with his coaching philosophy.

In comparing Dahlin to Skinner under Krueger....

Dahlin went from 1.5 pt/60 in year 1 (Housely) to 2.1 pt/60 in year 2 (Krueger)

Skinner went from 2.5 pt/60 to 1.4 pt/60 under Krueger in his first season

More bullshit. **Explanations at the end of my post.**

And this isn't me saying Krueger is a good coach. I thought he was a terrible hire from day 1
What I'm saying is you can't blame Krueger for Skinner's issues. He's pulled this disappearing for a season act before.

What you’re saying is you‘re so triggered by someone posting something nice about Skinner that you had to post several attacks against him.

Just because he had a good year last year doesn't mean you can forget the two previous.

He's a wildly inconsistent forward.

Will he perform better with better deployments/usage? Sure. Does that explain him completely falling off the map for 2 entire seasons? No.

**I always know someone is coming with a bad faith argument about Skinner when they go to the All Situations points/60 mins.

Skinner is a goal scorer, especially at 5v5 where he‘s been one of the best even with the fluctuations. He’s not a playmaker. His assists are largely a product of linemates. He’s also only come close to the level of goal scoring and production of that season under Housely one other time. Not quite an outlier but not what should be expected.

**So with the above in mind, lets break things down.

1) His usage with Housely vs Krueger.

With Housely
-offensive usage (OZS% of 66%) with Jack/Sam on top offensive line
-on PP #1

With Krueger 1st year
-two way/matchup deployment (OZS% of 52%) starting off with Johansson/Sobotka.
-on PP#2

There was going to be a drop off going from the Housley usage to the Krueger one. Plus a drop off in assists going from Jack/Sam as regular lineumates to who he played with under Krueger.

You acting like its shocking is pretty ridiculous.

2) What about his bread and butter, goal scoring? Especially 5v5?

At 5v5 —> 20 goal pace (14g in 59gms). Only dropping off from 27 goals the year before. Thats pretty impressive considering the drastic changes in usage/linemates. Plus his 5v5 goals/60mins (1.06) was best on the team (Jack .91/Sam .88).

Overall he went from 40goals to 20goals (pace). The breakdown as to why…

-Went from 27 to 20 5v5 goals. Explained above
-Went from 5 to 0 non 5v5 ES goals (goalie pulled for either team, 4v4, etc).
-Went from 8 to 0 PP goals

Though he played a role, I can’t completely blame Krueger for the drop off in non 5v5 ES goals. But I can very much blame him for the PP goals disappearing. Skinner didn’t score a single PP goal during Kruegers entire tenure as coach. He’s never scored less than 4 PP goals in a season prior to that. Thats not a coincidence.



We all know Skinner is overpaid. But your ignorance filled attacks on his character are out of line. But not surprising

 

[VaporTrail]

Yeah, I'm more on the anti skinner train here, myself. One of the worst contracts in the league for a guy who vacillates pretty wildly in production and doesn't play a 200ft game. He'll be bought out when it's time, I hope.

Was hoping he would have been bought out by now but we do need to hit the cap floor

 

[Irie]

Was hoping he would have been bought out by now but we do need to hit the cap floor

I'll admit, his contract is not great, but at this point I would rather keep him and his 30+ goals around than have 33.5 million of dead cap over ten years from a buyout, and then have to find a replacement for him on top of that....

 

[TehDoak]

Nope. Before they even played a game under Krueger, he had already decided to take Skinner away from PP1, off Jack’s wing, etc. It had nothing to do with Krueger being mad at him and everything to do with his coaching philosophy.

More bullshit. **Explanations at the end of my post.**



What you’re saying is you‘re so triggered by someone posting something nice about Skinner that you had to post several attacks against him.



**I always know someone is coming with a bad faith argument about Skinner when they go to the All Situations points/60 mins.

Skinner is a goal scorer, especially at 5v5 where he‘s been one of the best even with the fluctuations. He’s not a playmaker. His assists are largely a product of linemates. He’s also only come close to the level of goal scoring and production of that season under Housely one other time. Not quite an outlier but not what should be expected.

**So with the above in mind, lets break things down.

1) His usage with Housely vs Krueger.

With Housely
-offensive usage (OZS% of 66%) with Jack/Sam on top offensive line
-on PP #1

With Krueger 1st year
-two way/matchup deployment (OZS% of 52%) starting off with Johansson/Sobotka.
-on PP#2

There was going to be a drop off going from the Housley usage to the Krueger one. Plus a drop off in assists going from Jack/Sam as regular lineumates to who he played with under Krueger.

You acting like its shocking is pretty ridiculous.

2) What about his bread and butter, goal scoring? Especially 5v5?

At 5v5 —> 20 goal pace (14g in 59gms). Only dropping off from 27 goals the year before. Thats pretty impressive considering the drastic changes in usage/linemates. Plus his 5v5 goals/60mins (1.06) was best on the team (Jack .91/Sam .88).

Overall he went from 40goals to 20goals (pace). The breakdown as to why…

-Went from 27 to 20 5v5 goals. Explained above
-Went from 5 to 0 non 5v5 ES goals (goalie pulled for either team, 4v4, etc).
-Went from 8 to 0 PP goals

Though he played a role, I can’t completely blame Krueger for the drop off in non 5v5 ES goals. But I can very much blame him for the PP goals disappearing. Skinner didn’t score a single PP goal during Kruegers entire tenure as coach. He’s never scored less than 4 PP goals in a season prior to that. Thats not a coincidence.

2 years, 112 games, 37 points

After signing a 8 year, 72M contract with a full NMC

You can't blame the coach for that. That's on the player.

It's not unsurprising to see the drops after a contract year. However, to go from 40 goals, 63 pts in 82 games to 14G, 23 pts in 59 games is more than just usage/linemates. If Krueger had given him the same usage as before, his numbers still would have dropped. Not as precipitously as before, sure.

But again, the quality of his production varies year to year. It has his entire career.

I don't get the rush to defend the guy. 37 points, 112 games over 2 seasons. With no major injuries to deal with. Yes, there were coaching/usage changes. But the kind of drop we saw is reflective of a reduced effort as well. And for it to come after he signed a giant 8 year deal with a full NMC isn't exactly a new story in the NHL. In fact its all too common after you give a guy with uneven results over his career a huge deal after a career year, which is why it was a terrible contract from the minute it was signed.

We all know Skinner is overpaid. But your ignorance filled attacks on his character are out of line. But not surprising

It's was a joke. Was it rooted in the reality that his numbers dropped to well below a 3rd line grinder for 2 full seasons? Absolutely. Was it intended to be an attack on him personally? No. He hasn't been a leader in this league and his inconsistent effort and production from year to year isn't something you want young players emulating. And that isn't exactly some ground breaking revelation.

There's nothing ignorant about it.

 

[WhereAreTheCookies]

I don't get the rush to defend the guy. 37 points, 112 games over 2 seasons. With no major injuries to deal with. Yes, there were coaching/usage changes. But the kind of drop we saw is reflective of a reduced effort as well. And for it to come after he signed a giant 8 year deal with a full NMC isn't exactly a new story in the NHL. In fact its all too common after you give a guy with uneven results over his career a huge deal after a career year, which is why it was a terrible contract from the minute it was signed.

Most haven't been defending his production. The production wasn't there, but the effort was.

You are equating production drops to lack of effort when his effort didn't immediately drop once he signed his extension. His effort did appear to drop off a bit at times in Kreugers final half season and from the players perspective I can hardly blame him. When you get beat down by your coach in the media, demoted to the 4th line and essentially not be put in a position to succeed how many players are going to respond positively to that? Yet during all of that Skinner still never complained to the media, never bashed the team, the coach or anyone else that I can recall.

Many of his metrics remained relatively unchanged between 18-19 and 19-20. His shot generation per 60 actually increased, his corsi and fenwick numbers dropped only slightly despite his zone deployments changing significantly. In fact in 19-20 he was 2nd on the team in shot attempts, behind only Eichel. In 20-21 he was 4th in shot attempts behind VO, Dahlin and Sam while getting far less ice time than any of them. And both of those bad years he was still near the top of the team in percentage of shots that get through.

None of this looks like a player who isn't trying. This looks like a player who is not being put in a position to succeed.

 

[TehDoak]

Most haven't been defending his production. The production wasn't there, but the effort was.

You are equating production drops to lack of effort when his effort didn't immediately drop once he signed his extension. His effort did appear to drop off a bit at times in Kreugers final half season and from the players perspective I can hardly blame him. When you get beat down by your coach in the media, demoted to the 4th line and essentially not be put in a position to succeed how many players are going to respond positively to that? Yet during all of that Skinner still never complained to the media, never bashed the team, the coach or anyone else that I can recall.

Many of his metrics remained relatively unchanged between 18-19 and 19-20. His shot generation per 60 actually increased, his corsi and fenwick numbers dropped only slightly despite his zone deployments changing significantly. In fact in 19-20 he was 2nd on the team in shot attempts, behind only Eichel. In 20-21 he was 4th in shot attempts behind VO, Dahlin and Sam while getting far less ice time than any of them. And both of those bad years he was still near the top of the team in percentage of shots that get through.

None of this looks like a player who isn't trying. This looks like a player who is not being put in a position to succeed.

Effort for the seasons starts well before the season begins or the first puck drops.

Now, we aren't in position to know what Skinner's off season program is like. We don't know if he kept to a good diet, if he worked out, or showed up out of shape.

What we do know is his numbers dropped so badly that frankly can't be explained by a different deployments.

Maybe there is a personal issue we don't know about. But, his drop in numbers is well beyond what could be explained by a change of team mates and a deployment. Skinner had played with "bad" players before, he scored 30+ playing with Derek Ryan previously. So, in the past, he had been able to drive a line himself. He did not do that in the previous two seasons prior to this.

And, in the end, that drop on production is on him. Just like his rebound this season is a testament to him playing better.

 

[Jim Bob]

Effort for the seasons starts well before the season begins or the first puck drops.

Now, we aren't in position to know what Skinner's off season program is like. We don't know if he kept to a good diet, if he worked out, or showed up out of shape.

What we do know is his numbers dropped so badly that frankly can't be explained by a different deployments.

Maybe there is a personal issue we don't know about. But, his drop in numbers is well beyond what could be explained by a change of team mates and a deployment. Skinner had played with "bad" players before, he scored 30+ playing with Derek Ryan previously. So, in the past, he had been able to drive a line himself. He did not do that in the previous two seasons prior to this.

And, in the end, that drop on production is on him. Just like his rebound this season is a testament to him playing better.

The offseason routine that helped Jeff Skinner earn an 8-year contract

Skinner’s workouts, specifically those on the ice, have increased in intensity since the calendar turned to

buffalonews.com

Given how healthy that Skinner has been throughout his career, I would not question his off season work ethic.

 

[WhereAreTheCookies]

Maybe there is a personal issue we don't know about. But, his drop in numbers is well beyond what could be explained by a change of team mates and a deployment. Skinner had played with "bad" players before, he scored 30+ playing with Derek Ryan previously. So, in the past, he had been able to drive a line himself. He did not do that in the previous two seasons prior to this.

He also played a ton of minutes with Rask and Williams those seasons. Neither of which I would have considered to be a "bad" player at that time. There is far more to production than just sticking guys with good players however. There is a good deal of chemistry involved in lines as we have seen just last year with Buffalo.

Also since we are going to review his past. Skinner signed his previous contract in August of 2012 which started for the 13-14 season. In 12-13 he had 13 goals and 24 points in 42 games, decent production but not amazing. He followed that up in 13-14 (The first year of his new big contract) with 33 goals in 71 games. The big difference between the production swings? His shooting percentage. As I have stated multiple times, his shot production has continued to remain high, and is always at or near the top of the team. It takes effort to get shots through and on net, and he continues to do that consistently. That didn't change when he signed his previous big contract, and it didn't change when he signed his latest one.

 

[CaliSabresfan24]

The offseason routine that helped Jeff Skinner earn an 8-year contract

Skinner’s workouts, specifically those on the ice, have increased in intensity since the calendar turned to

buffalonews.com

Given how healthy that Skinner has been throughout his career, I would not question his off season work ethic.

Doesn't he workout with Gary Roberts too? Not a bad person to train with if you want longevity..

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Doesn't he workout with Gary Roberts too? Not a bad person to train with if you want longevity..

He did in the past, can anyone confirm if that’s still a thing?

I like Skinner. Overpaid, it is what it is, but he’s a good guy to have in the top 6 for now- I’ll let future me worry about those last few years.


Can’t believe we’re still on about the Kruegering- he was great last season. I choose to be optimistic and think Donny will get consistency out of him.

 

[Jim Bob]

Doesn't he workout with Gary Roberts too? Not a bad person to train with if you want longevity..

Skinner has worked out with Roberts in the past. I am not sure if he is still working with him.

 

[truthbluth]

Jeff Skinner is a very good (though overpaid) player who basically forced a trade to the Sabres, is loved by teammates and is, at the moment, the most skilled forward on the team. He’s not physical, and his style of play, characterized by opportunistic execution around the net, is inherently streaky.

There’s good and bad. You can love him or hate him. But anything you attempt to ascribe to him being lazy, only playing well in contract years, or being not committed to hockey are wild conjecture without significant evidence. Don’t be surprised when people argue with you when you take it there.

 

[LongWayDown37]

Why are people wasting their time arguing about Skinner. No doubt he's an incomplete player, no doubt he's overpaid, no doubt Kreuger absolutely cratered him too. But he's good, his underlying numbers are typically good, he scores and he's tenacious in the offensive zone.

He's also not getting bought out, probably ever, it doesn't make any sense for our cap or for the Pegulas.

The guy is here for the long haul - I'm glad Granato is using him to the best of his ability. He's a good player.

 

[Jacob582]

Given how healthy that Skinner has been throughout his career, I would not question his off season work ethic.

I questioned his off season work ethic in the past. Based on someone that probably knows more than me.

Craig Rivet said this:

"You think I'm worried about Jeff Skinner's....ah... feelings? hog wash, tell him to lift some weights and get to the track..........He needs to come back and have a year, it's going to start by being in good shape this year. That's number one."

 

[CaliSabresfan24]

Skinner has worked out with Roberts in the past. I am not sure if he is still working with him.

My apologies it does look like it was at the beginning of his career. But to your point, it does sound like Skinner takes great care of himself off the ice and takes his training during the offseason seriously. I remember in Hall's press conference he mentioned he trained with Skinner and was very complimentary about Skinners training and how hard he works.

 

[TehDoak]

Jeff Skinner is a very good (though overpaid) player who basically forced a trade to the Sabres, is loved by teammates and is, at the moment, the most skilled forward on the team. He’s not physical, and his style of play, characterized by opportunistic execution around the net, is inherently streaky.

That is some revisionist history. He wanted to be near Toronto and Buffalo was the only team who could take on his cap hit and wanted him. I'm sure if Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc were interested he would have rubber stamped deals there too.

There’s good and bad. You can love him or hate him. But anything you attempt to ascribe to him being lazy, only playing well in contract years, or being not committed to hockey are wild conjecture without significant evidence. Don’t be surprised when people argue with you when you take it there.

He played well last year, a non contract year.

But, the two years previous weren't just a drop in production. They were absolute rocket to the bottom of the barrel terrible. You can't simply write those two years off. That isn't being streaky or inconsistent. There was something going on beyond "the coach didn't like me" those two years. To sit here and pretend like they didn't happen or try to shift all the blame on the coach while absolving skinner of having two putrid years after signing a massive deal is silly.

 

[MarkusKetterer]

That is some revisionist history. He wanted to be near Toronto and Buffalo was the only team who could take on his cap hit and wanted him. I'm sure if Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc were interested he would have rubber stamped deals there too.





He played well last year, a non contract year.

But, the two years previous weren't just a drop in production. They were absolute rocket to the bottom of the barrel terrible. You can't simply write those two years off. That isn't being streaky or inconsistent. There was something going on beyond "the coach didn't like me" those two years. To sit here and pretend like they didn't happen or try to shift all the blame on the coach while absolving skinner of having two putrid years after signing a massive deal is silly.

There was something going on. There was recovering from his ankle injury that he suffered in the year before he got that big contract. He didn’t have his speed to get in closer for his shots. He didn’t shoot less or anything compared to this past season. His shot location changed.

 

[VaporTrail]

I'll admit, his contract is not great, but at this point I would rather keep him and his 30+ goals around than have 33.5 million of dead cap over ten years from a buyout, and then have to find a replacement for him on top of that....

You sure that's what the buyout cost is ? I thought it was more like around 2 mill per year and for less years ?

 

[Gras]

You sure that's what the buyout cost is ? I thought it was more like around 2 mill per year and for less years ?

Cost Calculations​

BUYOUT DATE	BASE SALARY REMAINING	S.BONUS REMAINING	YEARS REMAINING	BUYOUT LENGTH	AGE	BUYOUT RATIO	TOTAL COST	TOTAL SAVINGS	ANNUAL COST
Jun. 15, 2022	$34,500,000	$7,500,000	5	10	30	2/3	$23,000,000	$11,500,000	$2,300,000

Cap Hit Calculations​

SEASON	INITIAL BASE SALARY	INITIAL CAP HIT	SIGNING BONUS	BUYOUT COST	POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS	SAVINGS	CAP HIT ( BUF)
2022-23	$2,500,000	$9,000,000	$7,500,000	$2,300,000	$9,800,000	$200,000	$8,800,000
2023-24	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	$7,700,000	$1,300,000
2024-25	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	$7,700,000	$1,300,000
2025-26	$7,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	$4,700,000	$4,300,000
2026-27	$5,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	$2,700,000	$6,300,000
2027-28	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
2028-29	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
2029-30	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
2030-31	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
2031-32	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
TOTAL	$34,500,000	$45,000,000	$7,500,000	$23,000,000	$30,500,000	$11,500,000	$33,500,000

Cost Calculations​

BUYOUT DATE	BASE SALARY REMAINING	S.BONUS REMAINING	YEARS REMAINING	BUYOUT LENGTH	AGE	BUYOUT RATIO	TOTAL COST	TOTAL SAVINGS	ANNUAL COST
Jun. 15, 2023	$32,000,000	$0	4	8	31	2/3	$21,333,333	$10,666,667	$2,666,667

Cap Hit Calculations​

SEASON	INITIAL BASE SALARY	INITIAL CAP HIT	SIGNING BONUS	BUYOUT COST	POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS	SAVINGS	CAP HIT ( BUF)
2023-24	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	$7,333,333	$1,666,667
2024-25	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	$7,333,333	$1,666,667
2025-26	$7,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	$4,333,333	$4,666,667
2026-27	$5,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	$2,333,333	$6,666,667
2027-28	$0	$0	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	-$2,666,667	$2,666,667
2028-29	$0	$0	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	-$2,666,667	$2,666,667
2029-30	$0	$0	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	-$2,666,667	$2,666,667
2030-31	$0	$0	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	-$2,666,667	$2,666,667
TOTAL	$32,000,000	$36,000,000	$0	$21,333,333	$21,333,333	$10,666,667	$25,333,336

Cost Calculations​

BUYOUT DATE	BASE SALARY REMAINING	S.BONUS REMAINING	YEARS REMAINING	BUYOUT LENGTH	AGE	BUYOUT RATIO	TOTAL COST	TOTAL SAVINGS	ANNUAL COST
Jun. 15, 2024	$22,000,000	$0	3	6	32	2/3	$14,666,667	$7,333,333	$2,444,445

Cap Hit Calculations​

SEASON	INITIAL BASE SALARY	INITIAL CAP HIT	SIGNING BONUS	BUYOUT COST	POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS	SAVINGS	CAP HIT ( BUF)
2024-25	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	$7,555,555	$1,444,445
2025-26	$7,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	$4,555,555	$4,444,445
2026-27	$5,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	$2,555,555	$6,444,445
2027-28	$0	$0	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	-$2,444,445	$2,444,445
2028-29	$0	$0	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	-$2,444,445	$2,444,445
2029-30	$0	$0	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	-$2,444,445	$2,444,445
TOTAL	$22,000,000	$27,000,000	$0	$14,666,667	$14,666,667	$7,333,333	$19,666,670

Cost Calculations​

BUYOUT DATE	BASE SALARY REMAINING	S.BONUS REMAINING	YEARS REMAINING	BUYOUT LENGTH	AGE	BUYOUT RATIO	TOTAL COST	TOTAL SAVINGS	ANNUAL COST
Jun. 15, 2025	$12,000,000	$0	2	4	33	2/3	$8,000,000	$4,000,000	$2,000,000

Cap Hit Calculations​

SEASON	INITIAL BASE SALARY	INITIAL CAP HIT	SIGNING BONUS	BUYOUT COST	POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS	SAVINGS	CAP HIT ( BUF)
2025-26	$7,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	$5,000,000	$4,000,000
2026-27	$5,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	$3,000,000	$6,000,000
2027-28	$0	$0	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	-$2,000,000	$2,000,000
2028-29	$0	$0	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	-$2,000,000	$2,000,000
TOTAL	$12,000,000	$18,000,000	$0	$8,000,000	$8,000,000	$4,000,000	$14,000,000

 

[VaporTrail]

Cost Calculations​

BUYOUT DATE	BASE SALARY REMAINING	S.BONUS REMAINING	YEARS REMAINING	BUYOUT LENGTH	AGE	BUYOUT RATIO	TOTAL COST	TOTAL SAVINGS	ANNUAL COST
Jun. 15, 2022	$34,500,000	$7,500,000	5	10	30	2/3	$23,000,000	$11,500,000	$2,300,000

Cap Hit Calculations​

SEASON	INITIAL BASE SALARY	INITIAL CAP HIT	SIGNING BONUS	BUYOUT COST	POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS	SAVINGS	CAP HIT ( BUF)
2022-23	$2,500,000	$9,000,000	$7,500,000	$2,300,000	$9,800,000	$200,000	$8,800,000
2023-24	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	$7,700,000	$1,300,000
2024-25	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	$7,700,000	$1,300,000
2025-26	$7,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	$4,700,000	$4,300,000
2026-27	$5,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	$2,700,000	$6,300,000
2027-28	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
2028-29	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
2029-30	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
2030-31	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
2031-32	$0	$0	$0	$2,300,000	$2,300,000	-$2,300,000	$2,300,000
TOTAL	$34,500,000	$45,000,000	$7,500,000	$23,000,000	$30,500,000	$11,500,000	$33,500,000

Cost Calculations​

BUYOUT DATE	BASE SALARY REMAINING	S.BONUS REMAINING	YEARS REMAINING	BUYOUT LENGTH	AGE	BUYOUT RATIO	TOTAL COST	TOTAL SAVINGS	ANNUAL COST
Jun. 15, 2023	$32,000,000	$0	4	8	31	2/3	$21,333,333	$10,666,667	$2,666,667

Cap Hit Calculations​

SEASON	INITIAL BASE SALARY	INITIAL CAP HIT	SIGNING BONUS	BUYOUT COST	POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS	SAVINGS	CAP HIT ( BUF)
2023-24	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	$7,333,333	$1,666,667
2024-25	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	$7,333,333	$1,666,667
2025-26	$7,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	$4,333,333	$4,666,667
2026-27	$5,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	$2,333,333	$6,666,667
2027-28	$0	$0	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	-$2,666,667	$2,666,667
2028-29	$0	$0	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	-$2,666,667	$2,666,667
2029-30	$0	$0	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	-$2,666,667	$2,666,667
2030-31	$0	$0	$0	$2,666,667	$2,666,667	-$2,666,667	$2,666,667
TOTAL	$32,000,000	$36,000,000	$0	$21,333,333	$21,333,333	$10,666,667	$25,333,336

Cost Calculations​

BUYOUT DATE	BASE SALARY REMAINING	S.BONUS REMAINING	YEARS REMAINING	BUYOUT LENGTH	AGE	BUYOUT RATIO	TOTAL COST	TOTAL SAVINGS	ANNUAL COST
Jun. 15, 2024	$22,000,000	$0	3	6	32	2/3	$14,666,667	$7,333,333	$2,444,445

Cap Hit Calculations​

SEASON	INITIAL BASE SALARY	INITIAL CAP HIT	SIGNING BONUS	BUYOUT COST	POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS	SAVINGS	CAP HIT ( BUF)
2024-25	$10,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	$7,555,555	$1,444,445
2025-26	$7,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	$4,555,555	$4,444,445
2026-27	$5,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	$2,555,555	$6,444,445
2027-28	$0	$0	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	-$2,444,445	$2,444,445
2028-29	$0	$0	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	-$2,444,445	$2,444,445
2029-30	$0	$0	$0	$2,444,445	$2,444,445	-$2,444,445	$2,444,445
TOTAL	$22,000,000	$27,000,000	$0	$14,666,667	$14,666,667	$7,333,333	$19,666,670

Cost Calculations​

BUYOUT DATE	BASE SALARY REMAINING	S.BONUS REMAINING	YEARS REMAINING	BUYOUT LENGTH	AGE	BUYOUT RATIO	TOTAL COST	TOTAL SAVINGS	ANNUAL COST
Jun. 15, 2025	$12,000,000	$0	2	4	33	2/3	$8,000,000	$4,000,000	$2,000,000

Cap Hit Calculations​

SEASON	INITIAL BASE SALARY	INITIAL CAP HIT	SIGNING BONUS	BUYOUT COST	POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS	SAVINGS	CAP HIT ( BUF)
2025-26	$7,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	$5,000,000	$4,000,000
2026-27	$5,000,000	$9,000,000	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	$3,000,000	$6,000,000
2027-28	$0	$0	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	-$2,000,000	$2,000,000
2028-29	$0	$0	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	-$2,000,000	$2,000,000
TOTAL	$12,000,000	$18,000,000	$0	$8,000,000	$8,000,000	$4,000,000	$14,000,000

At this point if the Sabres were to do it probably the best idea is to wait till the '25-26 season, imo

 

[Irie]

You sure that's what the buyout cost is ? I thought it was more like around 2 mill per year and for less years ?

Yeah, like @Gras posted. Buyouts are always twice as many years as the remaining contract has on it, so in this case, skinners 5 year contract would mean a ten year buyout duration.

Skinners buyout would save about 25% of his total cap hit and be stretched out over double the term, but there are a couple of years (year 4 and 5) that could be trouble and cause cap casualties.

Probably best to keep him around at least 3 years and if he is no longer producing, bite the bullet then if they really need the 5M savings that year.

A buyout now would save the pegulas 33% in real cost of the actual contract, but of course, they would still need to pay someone to take Skinners place in the lineup, so that savings is somewhat deceptive.

*Edit* you responded to Gras before I could post this. I agree, I think a buyout in that or the last year is likely, unless Skinner is still producing well.

 

[truthbluth]

That is some revisionist history. He wanted to be near Toronto and Buffalo was the only team who could take on his cap hit and wanted him. I'm sure if Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc were interested he would have rubber stamped deals there too.





He played well last year, a non contract year.

But, the two years previous weren't just a drop in production. They were absolute rocket to the bottom of the barrel terrible. You can't simply write those two years off. That isn't being streaky or inconsistent. There was something going on beyond "the coach didn't like me" those two years. To sit here and pretend like they didn't happen or try to shift all the blame on the coach while absolving skinner of having two putrid years after signing a massive deal is silly.

My version isn’t revisionist. His gm was trading him, and the only team he approved to waive his full NMC to (that we know of) is Buffalo. So yes, he didn’t force trade, (although he didn’t extend in Carolina), but once his gm decided to trade him, he waived specifically for Buffalo and then signed long term here. Your version is pure speculation. He may have only wanted Buffalo or Toronto. Or maybe he didn’t want to pay Canadian income tax. Maybe Buffalo was the only team. You literally have no idea.

 

[MarkusKetterer]

My version isn’t revisionist. His gm was trading him, and the only team he approved to waive his full NMC to (that we know of) is Buffalo. So yes, he didn’t force trade, (although he didn’t extend in Carolina), but once his gm decided to trade him, he waived specifically for Buffalo and then signed long term here. Your version is pure speculation. He may have only wanted Buffalo or Toronto. Or maybe he didn’t want to pay Canadian income tax. Maybe Buffalo was the only team. You literally have no idea.

Skinner came out and said he wanted to play closer to his family. So it was Toronto or Buffalo.

 

[Irie]

But, the two years previous weren't just a drop in production. They were absolute rocket to the bottom of the barrel terrible. You can't simply write those two years off. That isn't being streaky or inconsistent. There was something going on beyond "the coach didn't like me" those two years. To sit here and pretend like they didn't happen or try to shift all the blame on the coach while absolving skinner of having two putrid years after signing a massive deal is silly.

You are still trying to ignore the very important fact that during Skinner's good years he played with top six talent and in his down years he played with bottom six talent.

Skinner is a good complimentary player who does not really drive offense himself. Play him with other guys that don't drive offense and you get what you had under Krueger.

This is not rocket science.