The Roster Thread, Summer 2024

[Beerz]

Was the scoreboard going to pay for itself?

I thought Mexico was going to pay for it

 

[TehDoak]

The Skinner buyout could have easily been both:

- It was decided that Skinner wasn't verstaile enough to be successful in Lindy's system

AND

- The buyout saves money.

It's not mutually exclusive. Either way, I think between this and the Zucker 1 year deal, Its pretty clear we aren't going to be a cap ceiling team in the near future. Maybe the Pegulas simply want to see the team prove it can be a playoff team before investing.

However, there is money money being left on the table here, full stop. To say otherwise is to deny the very clear and obvious. The ownership isn't willing to spend to the cap, at least not in the teams current state.

Does that mean the Pegulas are being cheap? It widely depends on what your definition. They are likely still losing money on this team. A lot of it. It's not like they are just pocketing that money. I'd argue that they could likely offset the Sabres losses with the Bills profits, but the reality of the cost of the new Bills stadium likely means they are net negative for both for the time being.

They certainly aren't spending to the level that was promised when they bought the team in 2012, neither on the front office nor the on ice product. And they certainly aren't at the 'no stone unturned' level of additions that was promised by Adams prior of the offseason.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

If RBA wanted him out, I didn't have high hopes that Lindy would "fix him." It also think that moving Skinner out may have been a culture move as Lindy may have viewed Skinner as a guy that was happy cashing checks and scoring goals and not winning.

"Culture" was definitely part of it. I'm just not sure it will make enough of a difference to justify the cap handicap.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Maybe the Pegulas simply want to see the team prove it can be a playoff team before investing.

This is the only thing keeping me following the team, my hope that this is the case and that the internal cap is temporary.

 

[Fezzy126]

I get what you’re saying but Lindy should know Skinner pretty well as a player. He’s coached in this league a long time and been up against him quite a bit. I don’t think he ordered him bought out but definitely was involved in it happening.

It probably had a lot to do with the vision Adams/Ruff had for the roster. Plus Skinner seemed on the outs with Adams and saw less top 6 ice time at the end of last season.

I’d be very surprised if his teammates had anything to do with it.

I agree, I think they have their vision for the top 6 - Tage, Tuch, Peterka, Cozens, Quinn, and Benson (eventually). I don't think they want a player like Skinner in their bottom 6 from a roster construction standpoint. I'm not sure it's much more complicated than that.

 

[TageGod]

This is the only thing keeping me following the team, my hope that this is the case and that the internal cap is temporary.

I still think Zucker is the fallback option that leaves enough room for the top 6 move Adams likely wanted to start with. Could flirt with the deadline for using the cap.

 

[zenthusiast]

This is the only thing keeping me following the team, my hope that this is the case and that the internal cap is temporary.

I’m pretty sure it is.

 

[Jim Bob]

"Culture" was definitely part of it. I'm just not sure it will make enough of a difference to justify the cap handicap.

There isn't a cap handicap if Skinner was a sinkhole on the roster as the cap hits will total out to less than the $9Mx3 years if they had ridden it out with him.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

There isn't a cap handicap if Skinner was a sinkhole on the roster as the cap hits will total out to less than the $9Mx3 years if they had ridden it out with him.

The handicap is that we overpaid Zucker for one year instead of someone better. And I don't want to hear that Zucker is the only one who can be swayed to come to Buffalo by an overpay.

 

[Irie]

The handicap is that we overpaid Zucker for one year instead of someone better. And I don't want to hear that Zucker is the only one who can be swayed to come to Buffalo by an overpay.

The reality is that any GM is going to be very hard pressed to convince any decent UFAs to come to Buffalo on a one year deal. It is just not the contract any decent player is looking for.

Options were always a Zucker like player on a big overpay on one year deal, or a better player on a 7 year boat anchor disaster. Pick your poison.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

The reality is that any GM is going to be very hard pressed to convince any decent UFAs to come to Buffalo on a one year deal. It is just not the contract any decent player is looking for.

Options were always a Zucker like player on a big overpay on one year deal, or a better player on a 7 year boat anchor disaster. Pick your poison.

I don't believe you. It was reported by Fairburn that Adams was outbid for Kane last season -- Detroit didn't convince him with anything other than a higher salary, and Adams wouldn't go higher. So he missed out on a player he wanted because he wouldn't overpay him when he had the cap space.

There's no reason to believe that scenario didn't repeat itself this offseason.

I know it's convenient to believe Adams signed the one single player who was willing to play for Buffalo, but you're wrong. There are others out there -- they just need money. Adams not being able to use all of his cap space is what prevented him from getting someone better than Zucker.

 

[Sabreality]

I don't believe you. It was reported by Fairburn that Adams was outbid for Kane last season -- Detroit didn't convince him with anything other than a higher salary, and Adams wouldn't go higher. So he missed out on a player he wanted because he wouldn't overpay him when he had the cap space.

There's no reason to believe that scenario didn't repeat itself this offseason.

I know it's convenient to believe Adams signed the one single player who was willing to play for Buffalo, but you're wrong. There are others out there -- they just need money. Adams not being able to use all of his cap space is what prevented him from getting someone better than Zucker.

where did Fairburn report that? Doesn't mention anything about being outbid and Adams not willing to go higher here

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5102048/2023/11/30/buffalo-sabres-patrick-kane-detroit-devon-levi-zach-benson/

 

[Jimmybarndoor2]

The Skinner buyout could have easily been both:

- It was decided that Skinner wasn't verstaile enough to be successful in Lindy's system

AND

- The buyout saves money.

It's not mutually exclusive. Either way, I think between this and the Zucker 1 year deal, Its pretty clear we aren't going to be a cap ceiling team in the near future. Maybe the Pegulas simply want to see the team prove it can be a playoff team before investing.

However, there is money money being left on the table here, full stop. To say otherwise is to deny the very clear and obvious. The ownership isn't willing to spend to the cap, at least not in the teams current state.

Does that mean the Pegulas are being cheap? It widely depends on what your definition. They are likely still losing money on this team. A lot of it. It's not like they are just pocketing that money. I'd argue that they could likely offset the Sabres losses with the Bills profits, but the reality of the cost of the new Bills stadium likely means they are net negative for both for the time being.

They certainly aren't spending to the level that was promised when they bought the team in 2012, neither on the front office nor the on ice product. And they certainly aren't at the 'no stone unturned' level of additions that was promised by Adams prior of the offseason.

I think that I would not rule out a trade preseason with a roster player going the other way. But it needs to be a good value for the Sabres and I don’t think those happen until just before training camp

Having salary for the trade deadline might not be a bad thing either

 

[zenthusiast]

A short-term overpay deal with a promise to flip to a contender at the trade deadline if necessary is exactly how shitty teams like the Sabres manage to hook a decent aging player looking to cash in before they fall off entirely

If that’s not one’s cup of tea, sure, but I think this team could benefit from an Arizona Phil Kessel or Ottawa Vlad Tarasenko tier player

 

[WhereAreTheCookies]

The Skinner buyout could have easily been both:

- It was decided that Skinner wasn't verstaile enough to be successful in Lindy's system

AND

- The buyout saves money.

It's not mutually exclusive. Either way, I think between this and the Zucker 1 year deal, Its pretty clear we aren't going to be a cap ceiling team in the near future. Maybe the Pegulas simply want to see the team prove it can be a playoff team before investing.

However, there is money money being left on the table here, full stop. To say otherwise is to deny the very clear and obvious. The ownership isn't willing to spend to the cap, at least not in the teams current state.

Does that mean the Pegulas are being cheap? It widely depends on what your definition. They are likely still losing money on this team. A lot of it. It's not like they are just pocketing that money. I'd argue that they could likely offset the Sabres losses with the Bills profits, but the reality of the cost of the new Bills stadium likely means they are net negative for both for the time being.

They certainly aren't spending to the level that was promised when they bought the team in 2012, neither on the front office nor the on ice product. And they certainly aren't at the 'no stone unturned' level of additions that was promised by Adams prior of the offseason.

While you can make the argument that the Skinner buyout and Zucker deal were an attempt to save money or reduce spending there is also as much of an argument that it's not about those things.

The Zucker 1 year deal could just as easily be due to Adams trying to be forward thinking that Benson is going to work his way into the top 6 this season and push Zucker down the line-up. That combined with one or both of Rosen and Kulich likely being ready for the NHL next season makes his one year deal fit the projected timeline.

It has yet to be seen how the payroll looks for the extent of the buyout period, but they were willing to pay Skinner to not play for them despite having the space to do so. With Peterka seemingly taking his role on the 1st line, they may have felt someone like Zucker was better suited for a middle 6 role than Skinner. Also given Skinners track record playing lower in the line-up (albeit under the worst coach in the modern era) I don't know that he was going to break 20 goals from the 2nd or 3rd line while playing no defense. Zucker while not as reliable a scorer as Skinner has been historically, his game seems more in line with what they are trying to achieve.

They wanted to get harder to play against, and so far on paper they have achieved that based on the players they brought in. Whether that is the case when the games are played has yet to be seen obviously, but there does seem to be some direction now. Obviously, there are still holes most fans would have liked to see filled more effectively at the end of the day I think the product on the ice is going to look very different from last season.

 

[Zman5778]

A short-term overpay deal with a promise to flip to a contender at the trade deadline if necessary is exactly how shitty teams like the Sabres manage to hook a decent aging player looking to cash in before they fall off entirely

If that’s not one’s cup of tea, sure, but I think this team could benefit from an Arizona Phil Kessel or Ottawa Vlad Tarasenko tier player

I wonder if Terry is gunshy about that after the Taylor Hall debacle. Granted, that was their own fault by giving him an NTC......but still......

 

[Irie]

I don't believe you. It was reported by Fairburn that Adams was outbid for Kane last season -- Detroit didn't convince him with anything other than a higher salary, and Adams wouldn't go higher. So he missed out on a player he wanted because he wouldn't overpay him when he had the cap space.

There's no reason to believe that scenario didn't repeat itself this offseason.

I know it's convenient to believe Adams signed the one single player who was willing to play for Buffalo, but you're wrong. There are others out there -- they just need money. Adams not being able to use all of his cap space is what prevented him from getting someone better than Zucker.

It is the term that is the issue.

Looking at next offseason, the chances of all the upcoming RFA deals putting this team over the cap is high. If Quinn Peterka and Byram have good seasons, it's going to be really tight. If Adams added another 7M dollar forward on a multiple year deal in free agency this offseason, he would be looking at having to trade a young, good players or two to be under the cap ceiling. (remember, Skinner's buyout cap hit next year is actually quite high).

No player with multiple options was taking a one year deal. Players with limited options, AKA Zucker, are willing to take one year deals if the AAV is high enough.

It is fine that you don't believe my position, but ask yourself this, "which UFA players in the past have taken fair market deals to play in Buffalo?" Then ask yourself, which players have signed discounted contracts to play in Toronto, NYC, Florida, etc.?" The difference in those lists to the Buffalo one are staggering, and that is discounted in those other markets vs fair market in Buffalo. If we go apples to apples, it gets exponentially worse.

 

[Jacob582]

I've think they wanted Skinner off the power play and off the top line. Hence, there was no place for him on the team.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

where did Fairburn report that? Doesn't mention anything about being outbid and Adams not willing to go higher here

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5102048/2023/11/30/buffalo-sabres-patrick-kane-detroit-devon-levi-zach-benson/

On his podcast

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

It is the term that is the issue.

Looking at next offseason, the chances of all the upcoming RFA deals putting this team over the cap is high. If Quinn Peterka and Byram have good seasons, it's going to be really tight. If Adams added another 7M dollar forward on a multiple year deal in free agency this offseason, he would be looking at having to trade a young, good players or two to be under the cap ceiling. (remember, Skinner's buyout cap hit next year is actually quite high).

No player with multiple options was taking a one year deal. Players with limited options, AKA Zucker, are willing to take one year deals if the AAV is high enough.

It is fine that you don't believe my position, but ask yourself this, "which UFA players in the past have taken fair market deals to play in Buffalo?" Then ask yourself, which players have signed discounted contracts to play in Toronto, NYC, Florida, etc.?" The difference in those lists to the Buffalo one are staggering, and that is discounted in those other markets vs fair market in Buffalo. If we go apples to apples, it gets exponentially worse.

We literally could've had Kane instead of Zucker, for one year, and Kane is better. I'm sure there are others too.

 

[Sabre the Win]

The only thing Im mad about this offseason is the buyout of Jeff Skinner and not using the cap space. It doesn't help knowing that not next year but the year after that we will have over 6 million in dead cap because of this buyout when we are competing and need to add more depth.

The fanbase was impatient little nerds about Skinner's buyout and the organization is incompetent.

BTW I bet $500 on Edmonton winning the Stanley next year, why? Because all the old Eichel era players go on to win the cup. Skinner is Edmonton's lucky charm.

 

[Djp]

are you seriously comparing Alex Nylander and Casey Mittelstadt right now lol

I just remember Foligno where he was called up and had a strong close to the season having something like 13pts in 15g. He never reprated it

Sprong barely got bites with multiple years of decent production

also every player doesn't have to have grit, but I heard nylander's softness at least while on this organization was at a point where it was literally a joke amongst players and staff. Granted our culture during those years was not great, so it might say more about that

Sprong is st or below replacement level. A team would rather ser what their young players can do.

People forget Adams brought in Tuch Krebs Ostlund Rosen Levi Greenway Byram and Kulich from trades. That is a lot of significant adds. Maybe it is not translating into seeing star power on the team, but moves are moves.

Shhhhhh. Dont be logical. Those trades dont count because they arent Shiny High Impact Toys

Paying for 1-2 years of a middling UFA would have been better than sitting on the cash if it improved the team. Depth is a good thing. If more moves are made, then my point is rendered moot (I’m hoping that is the case, but I’m skeptical).

I'd rather let the kids play.

Yes. Literally every other team in the league has spent exactly the dollar amount of the cap for every year of their existence. It’s a strange binary but true

If there was room to either spend close to the cap, close to a “cap floor” and everything in between we might have a nuanced review of relative commitment but alas

If they didn't buy out dkinner they probably would be just under the cap.

When's the last time this many newcomers were added to the roster at the same time?

I recall over the years having 5+ new players

I don't believe you. It was reported by Fairburn that Adams was outbid for Kane last season -- Detroit didn't convince him with anything other than a higher salary, and Adams wouldn't go higher. So he missed out on a player he wanted because he wouldn't overpay him when he had the cap space.

There's no reason to believe that scenario didn't repeat itself this offseason.

I know it's convenient to believe Adams signed the one single player who was willing to play for Buffalo, but you're wrong. There are others out there -- they just need money. Adams not being able to use all of his cap space is what prevented him from getting someone better than Zucker.

Kane was also injured so there was questioned on him.

It is the term that is the issue.

Looking at next offseason, the chances of all the upcoming RFA deals putting this team over the cap is high. If Quinn Peterka and Byram have good seasons, it's going to be really tight. If Adams added another 7M dollar forward on a multiple year deal in free agency this offseason, he would be looking at having to trade a young, good players or two to be under the cap ceiling. (remember, Skinner's buyout cap hit next year is actually quite high).

No player with multiple options was taking a one year deal. Players with limited options, AKA Zucker, are willing to take one year deals if the AAV is high enough.

It is fine that you don't believe my position, but ask yourself this, "which UFA players in the past have taken fair market deals to play in Buffalo?" Then ask yourself, which players have signed discounted contracts to play in Toronto, NYC, Florida, etc.?" The difference in those lists to the Buffalo one are staggering, and that is discounted in those other markets vs fair market in Buffalo. If we go apples to apples, it gets exponentially worse.

I forecast 2 yr bridges on quinn, peterka. And benson. Byram gets a longer contract.

 

[Irie]

We literally could've had Kane instead of Zucker, for one year, and Kane is better. I'm sure there are others too.

It depends on what is being asked of each of them.

Kane will score you more points, but points are not everything.

Detroit's record last season with Kane in the lineup was 23-22-5 for a prorated season point total of 83.6 points.

Their record without Kane in the lineup was 18-10-4 for a prorates season point total of 102.5.

Was Detroit better with Kane? Not in the win loss column, but they did score more.

If you subscribe to the philosophy that scoring is the single most important factor in building a good hockey team, then Kane is your guy.

Personally, I don't think he is a guy you win with at this stage of his career, and in terms of the team needing more scoring, removing Matt Ellis as the teams Powerplay guru should be good for 20-30 goals alone, so I am not as worried as many others. Honestly, I like the versatility that Zucker brings.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

It depends on what is being asked of each of them.

Kane will score you more points, but points are not everything.

Detroit's record last season with Kane in the lineup was 23-22-5 for a prorated season point total of 83.6 points.

Their record without Kane in the lineup was 18-10-4 for a prorates season point total of 102.5.

Was Detroit better with Kane? Not in the win loss column, but they did score more.

If you subscribe to the philosophy that scoring is the single most important factor in building a good hockey team, then Kane is your guy.

Personally, I don't think he is a guy you win with at this stage of his career, and in terms of the team needing more scoring, removing Matt Ellis as the teams Powerplay guru should be good for 20-30 goals alone, so I am not as worried as many others. Honestly, I like the versatility that Zucker brings.

Well, there's our problem -- you're happy with Zucker and truly believe he was the best option. Fair enough. I certainly don't.

And Adams has such a poor track record with his UFA signings that I don't believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

There isn't a cap handicap if Skinner was a sinkhole on the roster as the cap hits will total out to less than the $9Mx3 years if they had ridden it out with him.

One handicap is, sort of like @Doug Prishpreed posted, is that Zucker is a semi-underwhelming replacement for Skinner. Another handicap is (which apparently is a difference of opinion between us) that the cap savings over year two and three can't be filled with a player with enough impact to justify the move. The last handicap is not debatable, which is a 2.4 mil cap hit for three more years after Skinner and his contract could've been a distant memory.

Some argue that this season is so important that ditching Skinner is worth it...yet the organization is not filling his roster spot with a player with a big enough cap hit or on-ice impact, that would be a legit signal of "going for it". To be clear, I don't think the team is ready to "go for" anything but a playoff spot and then get their teeth kicked in. Having to now wait for quality C depth to develop and be playoff-quality impact players, and D-men to age and physically develop and gain experience...to the level of making the team a Cup contender...they may as well have waited out Skinner's contract and be in a much better position to spend to the cap in three years (for good players on multi-year deals). They just got younger and less experienced swapping Cs and getting Byram instead of a veteran rock. For now anyway, that's a half step backward and ditching Skinner doesn't change that.