Taro T

Interesting. Thanks for that. Will stand corrected on this. The way the 2013 CBA is written, it reads that all salary due in an individual year would get prorated to either 1/3, 2/3, or in rare cases 3/3's should a buy-out occur. But it appears based on what you'd linked and a couple other sites that signing bonuses become guaranteed when the contract is signed even though the money can be deferred within the contract. Deferred bonuses expliciitly muut be paid after the contract runs out. Very interesting. Not the 1st item that is addressed in a manner that seems to contradict what is in the CBA; doubt it'll be the last. Again, thank you for that. 🍺

A few items on signing bonuses. 1. Fairburn stated that a guy can get a lot of the contract in a single year because of the possibility of getting a signing bonus; but he walked that back a bit saying you can get x on July 1 and then get y on the next July 1. The latter is true. But, unlike NFL contracts, ALL money (except for in the case of the the rare performance bonuses which not many players qualify for; if a player earns them and they would put the team over the salary cap in that year, then the part that puts the team over the cap gets moved to the following year) earned in a league year counts against the player's share of earnings in that league year. And all of those earned $'s go into what the player nominally earns in a particular year and there are still limitations on how much salary can vary from year to year. The player's contract can't be overly front nor back loaded. 2. A signing bonus (that isn't accompanied with a NMC/NTC) ends up making a player much more tradable because salary cap salary gets charged against the cap each day of the regular season. So, if a guy got 90% of his contract in a salary bonus; then the next team gets 100% of the cap hit for the rest of that league year after the trade, but only has to pay the guy 10% of that contract's remaining value. 3. Ordinary course buy-outs happen at the end of a league year; so his stuff about a player becoming unbuyoutable by having a signing bonus which starts on the 1st day of the new league year doesn't really come into play. UNLESS the team has arbitration hearings and they then can buy-out salaries during the league year, or if the team and player agree to terminate the contract, or if the team is terminating the contract for cause. But in that very last case, the club could likely win a suit to claw back a portion of that current season's signing bonus. So, he's likely right in rare cases, but in general, don't believe it will actually factor in to a decision to buy-out a player or not. Teams buy-out the remaining years of a contract, not the current year of a contract (for most cases; not counting the few exceptions already described). EDIT: While all that is technically correct, it looks like signing bonuses are treated differently than other salary with regards to buy-outs; the "signing bonus" regardless of which league year it is due in apparently is considered to have already been earned at the time the contract was signed, so it is NOT subject to ordinary course buy-out haircutting. So, having a signing bonus does appear to guarantee a player additional money should his contract get bought out. 4. He is right that a team that doesn't want a cash flow hit, like the Sabres seem be in that category, will be less inclined to give a signing bonus than one that doesn't care. 5. Signing bonuses can be offered in particular years, all years, or no years during the duration of a contract. Players traditionally tried to include large signing bonuses in years that the CBA is expected to expire as a form of lockout/strike protection. The player can get through a lockout a lot easier if he's already been paid. And signing bonuses can also vary in how big they are too yearly. 6. And, yes, once the player has the money in pocket, he can be trying to put it to work for himself having it earn additional money; but at most he's getting 1 year of time with a fraction of that money. So, it isn't quite the boon that he makes it out to be. It's not like the NFL where a player gets the signing bonus today and it gets charged against the cap over a series of years. Again, that signing bonus counts against league player's total salary in the year it is earned and the total earned salary that year needs to be close enough to what the player is earning in other years to keep the contract compliant with cap rules. Tuch isn't goint to get $39MM in signing bonus in year 1 with $1MM in salary that year; get $10MM in salary in years 2, 3, and 4 and then get $2.5MM in salary in each of the final 4 years of the deal. Those Christian Ehrhoff style deals don't exist anymore.

Understand that sentiment. And still REALLY want to see the Sabres hoist Lord Stanley's Chalice, but for now, personally, take solace from having been in the Aud for their last championship in that building and also from having been there when the short-lived Stampede won a title.

Tomorrow's game will be a huge tell as to whether Dahlin coming back and their having faith in 2 goalies has actually elevated this roster or if it was just a 2 game mirage of what might've been. On paper they should destroy Calgary (well, ok, maybe destroy is a bit hyperbolic, but they SHOULD beat them) but this has been true several times in the past few years, and the end result too often is a Flames victory here. They need to not let up and lose a game they should win unlike what they did when St. Louis came to town. Win that game and they can show that MAYBE, just MAYBE they'll be able to play well enough at home to overcome their road shortcomings and get to a point where even just going 0.450 on the road could be enough. And Thompson continuing his aggressive play tomorrow would go a long way towards making that regulation W happen.

With 3 goalies and him having played 2 games in the past 3 days, could see them giving him a day off which gives him some much needed rest and also gives both of the other guys a full practice rather than swapping in for each other. Hoping it's as simple as that for why he wasn't on the ice this morning.

Yes, the league suggested Botterill; but the other finalist to replace Murray was Zito. It's no different than when the Bills were looking for a new coach and it came down to Ryan and McDermott; Pegula (at the suggestion of Brandon) chose Ryan. The parallel goes so far as to Zito sitll being available when Botterill was canned, just like McDermott was. Unfortunately, that's where the parallel ends. But still, he has options to rectify the current mistake, and one of them is already in the buidling.

IF they can find a partner that works for/with Byram (besides Dahlin), would expect LT getting an extension on him and trading Power when/if necessary would be the better play. And maybe now Timmons can be that guy; they played very well together yesterday but were absolute trash in Detroit together; didn't pay that close attention to the matchups they were getting but 1 game being home and the other being on the road say that matchups could've been a huge factor in that. If not, keep Power. Byram's highs have been better than Power's, but his lows have been even worse. And there's a bigger risk of getting bad Byram than getting bad Power IMHO because his play seems to be so partner dependent. Though with the cap going up as much as it will soon, and with Byram showing he ISN'T a 1 or a 2, not completely convinced they can't keep them both. Mrkta will be on an entry level contract for 3 years when he finally arrives; Muel is locked up for a while and being a defensive 1st guy won't likely be getting much of a raise. Timmons is what he is. The only wildcards salary wise are Kesselring and Byram himself but Byram keeps playing himself to lesser deals down the road. That could change, and hopefully they do find a guy he works with very well (again, besidee Dahlin) but hasn't so far.

Yeah, signing Lyon for 2 years gives them a ton of flexibility for figuring out how to handle this season and even some flexibility for next year too. Pretty sure Levi isn't waiver exempt next year, so they have a decision to make within Lyon, Ellis, and Levi; but by having Lyon signed for the extra year, they actually get to make that decision rather than having it made for them. But, hang onto UPL for now, while working the phones to find him a home elsewhere. (Again, not convinced Adams is up to the challenge, but maybe with Jarmo's help he will be.) And if you get to a point that you have to send him to Ra-cha-cha, or more likely loan him to another team's farm club so both Levi and he can continue to get ice time, see if he clears or not. If he doesn't, well, at least you've just effectively knocked Skinner's cap hit next year down to what it'll be his final 2 years. And that is manageable.

Yeah, even with the apparent return of a few guys on the horizon, they have the ability to waive Geertsen 1st. Personally, believe they could (they won't, but they could) risk waiving Bryson when all D are healthy as they have some guys in Ra-cha-cha that could get called up and fill his role. Pretty sure they also could waive Dunne for a little bit longer without him having to go through waivers again, though they're getting close to that limit if they haven't already passed it. Personally don't want to see either Swede nor Kozak sent down when they get healthy but expect either Östlund or Kozak to be towards the front of the list of moves that do get made. There are moves they can make before simply waiving UPL. But if it weren't Adams making the move, would be more insistant on them making a move sooner than later. But don't really have much faith in Kevyn getting that right; but he does have Kekalainen helping him now (and Staal too 😉 ) so maybe he won't F it up.

The interesting thing there, IMHO, is how much more rubber Ellis has seen relative to UPL with significantly better results (small sample size). Also, pretty sure UPL hasn't had one shot in by his defenseman. Ellis can't say the same. 😉

It also could simply be an acknowledgement that teams will key on Thompson more than they will on Norris, so other teams will treat Tage as the 1C and Josh as the 2C. By ice time, expect Tage will get a little more time than Josh will, especially as they work Norris back into the lineup (hopefully for significantly more than 3 games this time), but when both are in game shape doubting that difference will be more than 1 minute. By what the other team puts out against them, expecting Tage to clearly be the 1C until Norris can create more problems than Tage can. And IF Tage stays motivated to play this way, which is a big if, as a physicality has never been in his tool box, these last 2 games have been a revelation, but if he stays motivated to play this way, he'll be real hard to supplant as the 1C.

The reason that it was suggested he be the 1st out of the lineup is all of the guys that will be coming back are offensively minded. So, you'd likely want to not be removing your defensively minded guys out initially. IMHO Rosen and Östlund have been playing better than Quinn. Expect that you have a better constructed roster removing Quinn than removing, say, Kozak who's been very good in a checking role or Malenstyn who's been very good on the PK. It isn't hate; it's simply a #'s game. Could see him being removed from the lineup after Krebs, but if he is kept in the lineup in Krebs' spot (because he isn't getting more ice time than Zucker, Benson, or Norris) can he handle that role? What is your preference for lineup when Zucker (and quite possibly Norris too per reports yesterday) comes back in? Forgot about Dunne. Would pull him out of the lineup before Krebs and Greenway and depending upon the opponent, Quinn too. Again, it isn't ire, and was one of the few here that expected a bounceback year from Quinn. It's strictly numbers and believe the 2 Swedes have been playing better than him in a very similar role.

Having been in the building (behind the net too) when Georgiev played his way out of Colorado, and seeing how his preseason went this year, just can't see anyone getting desperate enough to want to give him a try. Unless they've already gone through at least 5 goalies, can't see any NHL team even thinking about dialing Adams #.

Heard Elmira might be looking for some help. 😉

Well, there's the $5MM/yr question. IF he can continue to play like this, he'll be making at least that in the fairly near future. (Not necessarily on the next contract, but the one after that for sure.) If he can't, he'll be looking at ~$1.5MM/yr on the next contract. Whole lot of reasons besides just getting to continue living the dream for him to figure it out when shooters have him in his least opportune environment.