Beerz
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2011
- 36,360
- 12,574
Was the scoreboard going to pay for itself?
I thought Mexico was going to pay for it
Was the scoreboard going to pay for itself?
"Culture" was definitely part of it. I'm just not sure it will make enough of a difference to justify the cap handicap.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.
This is the only thing keeping me following the team, my hope that this is the case and that the internal cap is temporary.Maybe the Pegulas simply want to see the team prove it can be a playoff team before investing.
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 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.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.This is the only thing keeping me following the team, my hope that this is the case and that the internal cap is temporary.
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."Culture" was definitely part of it. I'm just not sure it will make enough of a difference to justify the cap handicap.
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
where did Fairburn report that? Doesn't mention anything about being outbid and Adams not willing to go higher hereI 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.
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 campThe 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 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 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......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 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.
On his podcastwhere did Fairburn report that? Doesn't mention anything about being outbid and Adams not willing to go higher here
Loading…
www.nytimes.com
We literally could've had Kane instead of Zucker, for one year, and Kane is better. I'm sure there are others too.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.
are you seriously comparing Alex Nylander and Casey Mittelstadt right now lol
Sprong is st or below replacement level. A team would rather ser what their young players can do.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
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.
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).
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
When's the last time this many newcomers were added to the roster at the same time?
Kane was also injured so there was questioned on him.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.
I forecast 2 yr bridges on quinn, peterka. And benson. Byram gets a longer contract.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.
Well, there's our problem -- you're happy with Zucker and truly believe he was the best option. Fair enough. I certainly don't.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.
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.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.