GrimFandango Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 After listening to yesterday's podcast, Darcy mentioned a rule which it seemed like K.Sylvester didn't know about, and neither did i, which seemed worth my while to post it on here for those that don't listen to TMS. Following March 9 (the trading deadline) you are allowed to exceed the 23 man roster with as many members as you want. Initially i saw that we were going to have about 25 bodies for 23 spots (when all were healthy), that would lead to us having to move either Roy, Miller or Vanek to Rochester, or make a trade to get rid of bodies. However knowing that we can sort of stockpile players (if they aren't healthy enough by the 9th), makes me feel good about keeping this team intact, and also is a huge benefit to us as we are so deep that injuries in the final month or in the playoffs shouldn't affect this team. Cool news either way, but very weird rule about roster management from the NHL. Just FYI.
Knightrider Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 Wow, that is interesting. Sounds like if he is planning on making a trade, it won't be instant talent. Why would he say this in public otherwise? Teams that had full rosters can now know they can enter the fire sales, driving the price for available talent up. Maybe he is trying one last push to deal Biron, and he is playing chicken with other front offices. If I'm him, though, I'd stay with the guys that have put the Sabres where they are. All of them. (Well, maybe not Rory. Please?)
Taro T Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 Wow, that is interesting. Sounds like if he is planning on making a trade, it won't be instant talent. Why would he say this in public otherwise? Teams that had full rosters can now know they can enter the fire sales, driving the price for available talent up. Maybe he is trying one last push to deal Biron, and he is playing chicken with other front offices. If I'm him, though, I'd stay with the guys that have put the Sabres where they are. All of them. (Well, maybe not Rory. Please?) Only if they have available cap room.
Saber61 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 Only if they have available cap room. exactly... the cap is still in place and only those who have the room to play around with it will be participating... and that is if there willing to lose turning a profit just to add a few players... some are... some are not.. the sabres... im not so sure... maybe if they lose birons 2.1 they'll add another 2.1 in something we need.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 maybe if they lose birons 2.1 they'll add another 2.1 in something we need. Well remember it's not $2.1 mil anymore ... by the time the deadline rolls around, it will be more like $500-600K for the rest of the year ... So a team with only that much room, or a team like Edmonton who might be n a budget, COULD take him for only that cost ... Also, if the Sabres decide to add a rent-a-player, they don't have to kill the bottom line to do it ... if they get a guy with a $2 million contract, they are only responsible for whatever is left, or about $500K .. .so they don't necessarily HAVE to move Biron's salary to make room.
Guest uniman Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 anyone see this? http://www.celsiusdesign.net/sabres/jerseys.html are they the new ones?
Guest uniman Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 or this? http://www.celsiusdesign.net/sabres/logos.html#
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 Nah they are dated March 2003 ... just one man's suggestion ...
Saber61 Posted February 16, 2006 Report Posted February 16, 2006 Well remember it's not $2.1 mil anymore ... by the time the deadline rolls around, it will be more like $500-600K for the rest of the year ... So a team with only that much room, or a team like Edmonton who might be n a budget, COULD take him for only that cost ...Also, if the Sabres decide to add a rent-a-player, they don't have to kill the bottom line to do it ... if they get a guy with a $2 million contract, they are only responsible for whatever is left, or about $500K .. .so they don't necessarily HAVE to move Biron's salary to make room. thats true pipes... we could still turn a profit and get a high priced rental... however if we want a long term addition then moving birons salary to get rid of it for next year would make sense i guess.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.